Re: Nested Sets vs. Nested Intervals

From: Alexandr Savinov <>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:14:48 +0100
Message-ID: <43730f94$>

Mikito Harakiri schrieb:
> 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?

Received on Thu Nov 10 2005 - 10:14:48 CET

Original text of this message