Re: IDJIT! Your Data Model Can't Posssibly Work!

From: Neo <neo55592_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 15 Apr 2006 21:59:06 -0700
Message-ID: <1145163545.966754.29860_at_v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>


>Hi Neo

Hello Hugo, how have you been? Thanks for posting. As with Bob, I always understand new things from your posts.

> These four lines prove that you understand absolutely nothing of ORM.

Saying I understand absolutely nothing about ORM would be technically incorrect. For example, I know ORM stands for Object Role Modelling. So I know at least one thing about ORM :)

But the intent of your statement is correct. I know very little about NIAM/ORM. In fact, currently it is limited to that described on the referenced web page. (If someone can point me to a better summary, please post it)

> ORM, NIAM, FCO-IM, ... are all methods that are _specifically designed_ to specify a schema ...

Well that's a bummer. I asserted that my data model was the most general for representing things. And Jay Dee and Bob Badour asserted it was ORM. So I want to verify if that is true. But if you are telling me that ORM is specifically for modelling schemas, then it doesn't seem to be as general as mine which can model almost anything, including schemas; or even RM which can model almost anything also, but can become impractical for some things.

When I first read the ORM summary, I sensed that an apple-to-orange comparison was being made to my data model but couldn't put my finger on it. Now I realize more clearly what that is. I wondered how anybody was going to implement ORM.

So now I am asserting that my data model is not only the most general method for representing things but that it is actually implemented on a processing system like PCs. The problem with ORM is that while it is also a fairly generic method of modelling things, currently it runs best on the most powerful computing platform in the universe: the human mind. It is only a guess (someone educate me), but I bet they are having difficulties actually modelling things on computers the way ORM models them in its diagrams, especially if RM is being used to implement it. So when you say ORM is a method that specifies a schema (with more precision and accuracy than any other method), normalize the data, and maintains referential and other integrity, this is in great part due to your mind and probably not completely achieved on computer hardware at this time.

Actually, I believe you are wrong that ORM is just a method of specifying schemas, but it is not my responsibility to defend ORM and I will let its proponents (like Bob) take a stab at explaining this to you :) before showing that whatever ORM can model in its diagrams I can actually model in the db (and then address some of your other comments, some of which aren't directly related to determining the most general data model for representing things). Received on Sun Apr 16 2006 - 06:59:06 CEST

Original text of this message