Re: THe OverRelational Manifesto (ORM)

From: U-gene <grigoriev-e_at_yandex.ru>
Date: 18 Apr 2006 07:55:46 -0700
Message-ID: <1145372146.338268.215560_at_u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>


By the way again :)

>>If the TTM already addresses the problem well...

Are you sure?

One month ago I sent very simple question to dbdebunk.com.

"...initial assumption, which all reasonings and conclusions are built on, does not seem to me full. I mean the question " What concept in the relational world is the counterpart to the concept "object class" in the object world?" and two answers
1. domain = object class
2. relation = object class

I'm not sure that these two answers (of course, the first one is true and second one is false) are only possible ones. And what is more - I'm not sure, that the question itself is only one question we should answer to find relationship between objects and relations. Really these assumptions look like just your personal opinion, because there is no any argument for adequacy of only these cases.

How can you argue this assumption?..."

No answer yet. May be can you answer?

Once again. TTM is buinl on very simple assumptions. They aren't wrong (I think so) but nobody proves that this is only possible question and these are only possible answer. For me it seems like fundamentally other approach can exist and it may be just interesting thing to understand if this approaches can really exist. I'm sure it exists.

Of course you can shuffle words "stupid" "idiot" and "shit" (You seem to be master of this action) But on
http://www.theorm.narod.ru/david_portas_asks.htm (at the end of page) you can find simple question. Show me the answer in Tutorioal D.... or continue to shuffle words....:) Received on Tue Apr 18 2006 - 16:55:46 CEST

Original text of this message