Re: Announcing New Blog

David Cressey wrote:
> "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > David Cressey wrote:
> 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".

Sadly, In UK BSc level computer science degree at least this is very much the prevailing situation. As far as most of the students are taught Databases = RM, and there is no room for maneuver. This does not bode well imo for new thought and development on what is at the end of the day is an academic as opposed to wholly business oriented course.

>
>
> > 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.

Well quite frankly, I don't think this sort of seasoned common sense any place in the world of religious database zealotry. (!) Received on Wed Jan 18 2006 - 15:57:09 CET