Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]

From: Gene Wirchenko <>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:12:09 -0700
Message-ID: <>

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:51:30 +0200, Alexandr Savinov <> wrote:

>Jon Heggland schrieb:
>>>As I
>>>mentioned, we define very naturally a model dimensionality, model "more
>>>specific" relation, model consequence just because we are able to
>>>produce canonical semantics. As a consequence we can define grouping and
>>>aggregation, inference and other mechanisms.

>> And otherwise, you can't? I feel we are getting nowhere. This is just
>> talk.
>Yes, definitely. That was clear from the very beginning. First of all it
>ia forum. The second point is that you have a defensive position which
>is unbreakable. Something like "why do I need OOP if I can implement
>everything in a procedural language". One can understand things only if
>he wants to, i.e., the position is not defensive.

     That, of course, assumes that there is something worthwhile there. So far, I have not seen anything but smoke.


>It depends. If you love the RM or if it is your religion then nothing
>else will be accepted as more useful. If you need to earn money then the
>new model will be more useful.

     Another silver bullet? (It is hard to tell with all the smoke.)

     You talk and talk, Mr. Savinov. It will take rather more than that to convince people you actually have something.



Gene Wirchenko Received on Thu Jun 16 2005 - 19:12:09 CEST

Original text of this message