Re: Just one more anecdote

Marshall Spight wrote:
> dawn wrote:
> >
> > Just on the off chance that perhaps someday you will want to do an
> > implementation with a different model than the one you currently use, I
> > suggest that it really is a good idea to aim first to prepare a model
> > without regard for the target implementation. Just a suggestion, of
> > course.
>
> I hate to get all Fabian-Pascally on you, but the thing about this
> is that the RM is based on set theory.
>
> >From Wikipedia:
> "Set theory .... can be viewed as both the foundation upon which
> nearly all of mathematics can be built and the source from which
> nearly all mathematics can be derived."
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set)
>
> There just aren't a lot of candidates for that position running
> around. How often do we expect a new comprehensive foundation
> for mathematics to come along? It doesn't seem like an event
> one should optimize for.
>
> I believe that you have identified quite a number of significant
> deficiencies in *SQL*, among them 3VL, lack of change management
> features, lack of support for ordered data, etc. I am fully
> subscribed to the idea that these problems can and should be fixed.
>
> At the same time, I *don't* believe that you've made even a chip
> in the giant granite edifice that is set theory, aka the RM.

I have no intent whatsoever to discount set theory. I'm pretty sure (not certain) that I don't want my entire API to a database to be in terms of sets. Is that a really stupid position? Are you sure that you don't want a dbms product to do ordered lists, to give you an api for handing you a nodelist from a tree, to have a better built-in understanding of a mapping, etc? Mathematics builds on set theory, it doesn't stop there. I don't think the RM is bad as a theory -- it is using it as the exclusive means of working with databases and data modeling where I'm not happy with it. Fair enough? --dawn

> Marshall
Received on Wed Aug 03 2005 - 04:33:47 CEST