Re: Database design

From: Mark Johnson <102334.12_at_compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:16:32 -0800
Message-ID: <57qkv1lcugg221dao9v45l0nmfusdg7llb@4ax.com>

Alexandr Savinov <spam_at_conceptoriented.com> wrote:

>> I agree. But so what? I could have an attribute of type "tree".

>Then the question is who will manage its content and be responsible for
>integrity, consistency and other issues? If it is the database then it
>could be qualified as a tree-aware database. If it is you then the
>database is of non-tree type (even if it stores trees). Thus it does not
>matter what kind of data a database stores. It is important what portion
>of its semantics it can understand and manage.

That was something Codd hoped to accomplish, as I understand it, removing the data from the program, as it were. Breaking out processes. In that way, it can simplify matters, protect some data integrity, and the rest, and seem only overkill for particularly small or trivial projects.

http://conceptoriented.com

As I understand it, aren't your 'class operators' much like level/join operator of XSLT? Alice.Bob.Walker implies some routine/mechanism to tie Alice to Bob, and then Bob to Walker, but which will not tie Alice to Walker directly? It would essentially be an alias for Connect By? Received on Mon Feb 20 2006 - 19:16:32 CST