Re: More on lists and sets

David Cressey wrote:
<snip>
> As I've watched the battle play out between "relational purists" and people
> like Dawn in this newsgroup over the last couple of years, there seems to
> be a common subtext in both of their positions. It can be stated roughly
> as: "there isn't room enough in this town for both of us." My position is
> that, yes there is room enough.

I just posted my latest blog entry and thought I'd check cdt quickly (while being mostly away from the internet until April). I'm rather pleased to see this discussion and the null discussion since that is what I'm writing about right now. I'll make a quick note here that I agree that I give the impression that there is not room enough for the RM and other models. But the reason is that the RM claims the exclusivity with the Information Principle. If a data model has a big enough umbrella to permit composite structures other than relations, then it seems that it is no longer the RM, right?

So, I am more than willing to agree that relations (e.g. functions) are a good structure for modeling data, but I want lists too. It sounds like we agree on this point, perhaps?
Cheers! --dawn Received on Sun Mar 26 2006 - 05:26:08 CEST