Re: Storing data and code in a Db with LISP-like interface
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 04:02:30 GMT
Message-ID: <qRA5g.20695$vy1.11102_at_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.
> 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 Tue May 02 2006 - 06:02:30 CEST