# Re: Nested Sets vs. Nested Intervals

From: Alexandr Savinov <spam_at_conceptoriented.com>

Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:14:48 +0100

Message-ID: <43730f94$1_at_news.fhg.de>

> Take a set of all tables as a set of vertices. Take a set of all

Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:14:48 +0100

Message-ID: <43730f94$1_at_news.fhg.de>

Mikito Harakiri schrieb:

> amado.alves_at_netcabo.pt wrote:

*>
*

>>Mikito, ..., the join operation per >>se does not give you a graph, ...

*>**>*> Take a set of all tables as a set of vertices. Take a set of all

*> foreign key integrity constraints as a set of edges. Do you challenge**> the idea that I just defined a graph?*Yes, but in such a formulation it is not RM! It is a graph model implemented via RM.

Nobody argues that many things can be implemented via RM including graph-based models. I could even imagine that someone could implement OOP or AOP techniques using RM. Or, vice versa, if I implement a behaviour of RM using Turing machine then it does not mean that Turing has invented RM.

The question is (as far as I understand it):

Is it more appropriate to view the (data) world as a set of relations (with some operations, constraints etc.) or as a graph?

-- http://conceptoriented.comReceived on Thu Nov 10 2005 - 10:14:48 CET