Re: MultiValue Databases

John wrote:
> Neo wrote:

[]
>
> To prove that the data model is "more general" does not require examples
> ad nauseam, it requires proof.
well said. but he has not chance of proof since his model is just a network datamodel.

> I sympathise with Lee. These examples bear no resemblance to a
> real-world modelling task that I have encountered, simply because one
> normally works from a known spec rather than designing a few tables and
> adding extra information in a piecemeal fashion.

but adding tables and columns for a RM model is not the drastic change the Neo makes it out to be. For example rether than restructure the phone DB to add the "Bob likes Mary" data, i would suggest a table called LIKES with two attributes DESIRER and DESIREE as primay key. both would foreign key back to the persons table so you prevent illogical entries like "111-1111 likes neutral".

>
>
> This just isn't the way that you prove a point. You need to do it in an
> abstract and formal way rather than by these examples, usenet challenges
> etc.
>
> I admire your enthusiasm for your cause, and am very much a supporter of
> new technologies, the underdog etc.

The sad thing is this isn't new technology. It's old technology wrapped in windows clothes.

> ... If you are serious about this then
> get up to speed on the relational model and the supporting theory (read
> and absorb the whole of Date's intro to database systems for example).
> This will introduce you to the whole range of criteria against which a
> database will be judged. If xrdb is going to compete, it will have to be
> as good as or superior to relational DBMSs in every criterion. Like it
> or not, relational databases are the market leader and you'll have to
> know them inside out for your product to compete with them.

Relational Model is not a market leader, since it isn't a product. It is the basis of many leading DBMS products. It is also the theoretical "leader" meaning it is the best general model known.

>
> Just from thinking about it, xrdb can be shown as better than relational
> databases when it comes to storing data or completely unpredictable
> structure. Your computer task would probably show that xrdb was neater
> for persisting this type of information. The problem is that someone has
> to retrieve that data, enforce integrity constraints on it etc. With a
> relational DB you can see a list of tables each of which contains atomic
> or encapsulated values and has regularly defined constraints on it.
> Trying to browse the xrdb hierarchy looks complicated enough using the
> tool you have developed; trying to write queries for it, reason about
> the structure, compare different entities etc could be nightmarish.

By Jove, I think he's Got IT!

>
> If I were you I would think about / do the above then produce an
> advocacy paper with formal justification for each of the claims. Post
> back here and I'm sure a lot of people will assess it for you. I am not
> a big one for ad hominem arguments, but I think you need to realise that
> you need to be very well-educated and experienced in this field to avoid
> looking like a tit compared with people that are. I hasten to add that I
> profess to be neither.
>
> John

I would prefer he post his theoretical arguements in comp.databases.theory first and leave comp.databases out of it for now. There are just too many newcomers to database theory here (in comp.databases) to see how bad neo's system really is.

Ed Received on Thu Jun 09 2005 - 16:34:04 CEST