Re: what data models cant do
From: Paul <paul_at_test.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:48:33 +0100
Message-ID: <428a2060$0$26114$ed2619ec_at_ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>
>
> Yes, indeed. I formulated my "law" when I observed that people of any
> technical background or management level could actually conduct very
> productive meetings together if they stuck to the detailing of what should
> be kept in tables. There is something in the human mind that easily works
> with tabular data.
>
> I believe, completely without proof, that this human intuition is ultimately
> behind both the success of spreadsheets and the relational model. It is
> what gives us our sense that the relational model is "elegant".
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:48:33 +0100
Message-ID: <428a2060$0$26114$ed2619ec_at_ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>
>>Non IT people understand relations very well too. IMO business people >>tend to understand relations and set theory better than IT people.
>
> Yes, indeed. I formulated my "law" when I observed that people of any
> technical background or management level could actually conduct very
> productive meetings together if they stuck to the detailing of what should
> be kept in tables. There is something in the human mind that easily works
> with tabular data.
>
> I believe, completely without proof, that this human intuition is ultimately
> behind both the success of spreadsheets and the relational model. It is
> what gives us our sense that the relational model is "elegant".
It just goes to show that intuition isn't always right (cf. quantum mechanics, relativity, etc.).
I think the sense of elegance stems from the fact that every fact is stored in one place only.
Paul. Received on Tue May 17 2005 - 18:48:33 CEST