Re: Announcing New Blog

"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> David Cressey wrote:
> > "Jay Dee" <ais01479_at_aeneas.net> wrote

> Now that I have given what you accurately referred to as an opening
> statement, I will proceed to introduce both theory and practical
> evidence, non of which I consider conclusive, before giving a closing
> argument, likely in Q4 this year. It will be up to the reader to
> decide whether the RM is the only real database theory, as many of its
> proponents claim, whether or where it might be a best practice, and
> whether there is reason for the industry to move away from seeing the
> RM as king of the hill in data modeling (and college texts).
>

I'll probably read it, given that you have started well.

As fond as I am of the RM, I would hate to see it be "king of the hill" in college teaching.

In fact, I think of "king of the hill" type thinking as closed minded, whether the topic is data modeling, physics, interpretation of Shakespeare, or political science. I deplore those who try to establish a hegemony of ideas within the university. And I see much too much of that in today's universities.

As for me, I regard the RM as "king of one of the hills, and there are alot of other hills".

> I, too, do not accept it as a given. I also don't have an airtight
> case for walking completely away from the RM, but hopefully more
> compelling than the case for using the RM as (almost) the exclusive
> means for getting from conceptual to logical data models.
>

I think that the truth that will eventually out is this: there is a class of problems for which the RM is a useful framework for disciplined thinking, and there is a class of problems for which it is not.

Good luck. Received on Wed Jan 18 2006 - 15:39:44 CET