Re: Storing data and code in a Db with LISP-like interface

From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 04:02:30 GMT
Message-ID: <qRA5g.20695$vy1.11102@news-server.bigpond.net.au>

Alvin Ryder wrote:
> Marshall Spight wrote:

>> Alvin Ryder wrote:
>>> Marshall Spight wrote:

[..]

>> The RM is a practical application of set theory. Is set theory
>> good for some kinds of data but not others? Set theory
>> is foundational.

[..]

>> What kinds of data can't you put in sets?

>
> Sure you can put any kind of data into a set but if you know that that
> data is temporal or spatial you can provide further intelligence and
> facilitate that data better.
>
> Just because the RM is based on set theory (amongst other things) it
> doesn't mean it has to stop there. It doesn't have to mean "RM" equals
> "set theory".

Some (bigots) in CDT hold if the requirement can't be represented in set theory then it isn't or shouldn't be considered part of the RM. I don't subscribe to this view although I admit the concept has some appeal in terms of keeping the RM simple and compelling.

However considering the temporal issue you mentioned I am wondering where time fits in set theory. I admit I am not well read on the mathematical stuff and would be interested to see what better informed types have to say on the subject.

> Its not only a question of can you merely put any data into a set, its
> a question of is the base RM *good* at handling temporal, spatial,
> dedictive, oo, multimedia, unstructured and document library type data.

Regardless of the prior points IMO the measure of *good* is a merely the capacity of the implementor(s) to handle that data in a way that the user(s) find responsive to their requirements. I don't think the RM would need to be changed to accommodate any of these other aspects.

> For certain advancements changes need to occur at the RM level,
> relational algebra and if necessary even at the set theory level (I
> doubt that it is static).

FWICT Set theory is pretty solid where it is right now.

> Codd and others have not been idle in this pursuit, though of course
> it'll be decades before it all becomes common knowledge.

Do you mean the history or stuff under development or both?

Cheers, Frank. Received on Mon May 01 2006 - 23:02:30 CDT