Re: Multiplicity, Change and MV

From: x <>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:05:27 +0300
Message-ID: <e1lpaj$lk6$>

"Neo" <> wrote in message
> > Ok. I did not followed your explanations to Bob Badour.
> > I did not followed this newsgroup for all the past 5 years.
> If you so desire, search Google Groups c.d., c.d.o. and c.d.t. using
> words such as "Neo", "Badour", NULLs, normalization, redundant, etc.


> > > And within RM's range of scope, it does so very elegantly.
> >
> > What is the difference between range and scope ?

> My use of "range" and "scope" appears to have been fuzzy. In the
> context of a tool/methodology, I meant to use the word "scope" to
> define the range of problems/applications for which it can provide
> practical solutions. Thus the scope of a size 8 mm wrench would be nuts
> of size 8 mm (-+ some tolerance). The scope of a single adjustable
> wrench might be nuts from size 1 to 20 mm. The scope of a similar size
> pair of pliers might be even larger as it not only handles nut sizes 1
> to 20 mm, but the nut head can be of irregular shapes. If someone can
> suggest better terminology, I would appreciate it.

In your posts I have seen lots of links (relations ?) . You said the most important operator of your model is AND (join ?). If the RM doesn't have the same scope as your model because your model has some new operator, what stops one to add your new operator to the RM ? Maybe someone already done it.

> > > ... in this rough analogy, RM is the wrench set ...
> >
> > I think you talk about SQL here, not about RM.
> While SQL itself probably has some limitations, the underlying source
> is the RM model itself. This also I have discussed at length in prior
> threads and have no desire to do currently.


> > > Please post a RM script and a few typical queries ...
> >
> > I cannot post a RM script, sorry. :-)
> Could your post the reason why?

I cannot. Sorry :-)

> > ... I don't think you have something new.
> Thus far, it doesn't appear to me that you are qualified to make the
> above evaluation because you haven't posted any concrete
> scripts/solutions to problems that I asserted are impractical in RM in
> several recent c.d.t. threads. But it is good that you have a skeptical
> mind :)

Ok. Received on Thu Apr 13 2006 - 17:05:27 CEST

Original text of this message