Re: Multiplicity, Change and MV

From: Neo <>
Date: 14 Apr 2006 18:19:48 -0700
Message-ID: <>

> while I appreciate the time invested in responses in this thread, I would also appreciate it if you do not second guess my opinions

Considering that you have been a non-participant in the very thread that you started 64 posts ago and have not clarified anyone's interpretation (including mine 61 posts ago), you are partially responsible by your lack of participation.

> when promoting a personal agenda ...

While I am probably more guilty of that than most others, nearly everyone has an agenda. For example, check yours in recent threads titled "The stupidest design I ever saw" and "Storing data and code in a Db". Even in this thread, you have an agenda, albeit a non-offensive one. It is to get some free opinions from "proficient people". Some like Bob, think it's their agenda to set people on the right path (RM). My main agenda is to find/implement the most flexible method of modelling things. My agenda seems to irritate everyone.

> I would (personally) not be satisfied with a model that exonerates itself of responsibility for representing constraints (which are equally propositions we are trying to model after all) to the querying application.

Actually, I didn't express constraints limits sufficiently before. The experimental data model can represent any and all user-defined contraints and to a greater extent than RM if desired, however the db does not enforce any user-defined constriants stored in the db. Currently this is upto the code interfacing to the db. For example, if every person must have two arms and a mother, it can be stored in the db, but the db model and db itself, currently do not enforce it. Sometime way in the future, when it can better store/execute code (stored as data), this might change.

> but am not willing to lightly abandon the mathematical rigour that the RM offers as a data model, especially in its supporting algebra.

This is why I am Neo and you are in the Matrix :) Received on Sat Apr 15 2006 - 03:19:48 CEST

Original text of this message