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

Bob Badour wrote:
> Alvin Ryder wrote:
>
> > Marshall Spight wrote:
> >
> >>Alvin Ryder wrote:
> >>
> >>>Marshall Spight wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>And anyway, I wouldn't say the RM is the best tool for
> >>>>*everything.* Just the best tool for data management.
> >>>
> >>>Only certain kinds of data, it's not very good for: temporal, spatial,
> >>>logic, oo, multimedia, unstructured and document libraries, ... but yes
> >>>it has some strengths too.
> >>
> >>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. The analogy to what you are saying ("good
> >>for some things, not for others") would be like saying that
> >>some parts of a house need a foundation, but not others.
> >>
> >>What kinds of data can't you put in sets?
> >>
> >>Marshall
> >
> > Hmm, yes and no.
> >
> > The original RM was defined circa 1969/70 but was then extended by Codd
> > (and others) many times and in many different directions. For instance
> > in '79 Codd wrote "Extending the Relational Model to Capture More
> > Meaning".
> >
> > Why extend the RM if it was set in stone and never needed maturing?
> >
> > He writes, "The intent is to capture (in a more or less formal way)
> > more of the meaning of the data so that database design can become more
> > systemetic and the database system itself can behave more intelligently
> > ..."
>
> I suggest, as soon as one sees someone anthropomorphize computers, one
> should question the direction the person is headed.
>
>
> > But once we try to capture the "meaning" of data to provide more
> > intelligence in the db, we enter a wide open never ending pursuit. Now
> > we are not using sets in a blind way.
>
> We never were using them in a blind way. Instead of all this useless and
> irrelevant crap, why don't you try to answer what Marshall actually asked?
>

Because instead, I tried to kindly point out the RM didn't stop developing and maturing in 1970. It has moved on. Sets may be devoid of domain semantics but the (advanced) RMs are not.

>
> > The areas I identified previously are widely accepted as worthy of such
> > research and extension.
>
> I will grant that among ignorants those misconceptions are widely
> accepted. But I suggest you not rely on the opinions of ignorants.

I'm not the one unaware of the limitations of the original RM. I'm not the one unware of myriads of research in the areas I listed. To be constantly called ignorant by you is amusing and mildly funny.

Actually I'm not ignorant, I'm stupid. I've wasted so much time here. Clearly I won't be learning more about current advances in the RM and database theory here. Received on Tue May 02 2006 - 01:41:29 CEST