Re: "The OverRelational Manifeso". The answer on x's question (RM/T and "TheORM")

Thank you for the answer.
See below with x>

"U-gene" <grigoriev-e_at_yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:1146728906.485024.206200_at_j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... In my previous topic "x" asked me what is relationship between "The OverRelational Manifeso"'s approach and RM/T's approach.

I will not go into the details of this schema. Some difference (big enough) between it and the "TheORM"'s R-projection schema exists and can be discussed. But this is not the main difference between RM/T and
"TheORM".

1. The fact is that RM/T says nothing about how we can realise this ideas. For me it looks like we have to do it all (create these relations and, also, special constarin and operation) manually but this is difficult really.

x>From where did you get this ideea ? RM/T simply suggest new operators and a catalog schema that might be useful to someone. x>And some new rules.

"TheORM" offers the approach allows create a
system, which will performes all this tasks (Once again - "TheORM" doesn't offer new model - RMD is only used data model, all other question are about principles of system). This system creates SET of relations using description of this moleculare semantic unit, which are more complex than simple (and single) relations.

x>Some RM/T operators work with set of relations.

2) At that "TheORM" says nothing about kinds of entities, which can exist in entreprise and don't find simple ones. On the contrary - it's only assumption that the meaningful units of information can be really complex - as complex as relational DATA BASE (= SET of relations) can.

x> This reminds me of a toy I programmed in Prolog sometime in 199?. x> I have read an article in Science et Vie in 1990 (not sure) about the robots of Mr. Brooks from MIT.
x> When learning about rules systems, I implemented hierarchical (is-a and part-of) sets of :

x> - facts
x> - backward rules
x> - forward rules
x> - mixed rules
x>as a metalanguage on top of Prolog.
x>This was not based on any kind of theory.  :-)
x>The end result was some dots moving around on the screen
x>with the initial facts and rules for the dots based on some templates. :-)
x>What I didn't tried was to implement an efficient system, independent of

 The system, which "TheORM" speaks about, is able to describe such complex structures and, then, translate this description into relational schema.

x>What ? Why translate ?

I don't believe that some universal infological model can be created. I know person who believes that only binary relationships exist and he defends this point of view violently,

x> LOL. Maybe he is right ? :-)

And I know other persons who have very intresting, sometimes strange but really different approaches on creating of enterprise description. So,
"The ORM" doesn't try to classify entities, attributes, relationships
ets, what can exist in the enterprise. Instead of this it's found possibility to describe more complex "molecular semantic units" which it calls just as "object" (becouse it looks like the ones in usual OO-languages) and to manipulate with corresponding variables. "THeORM" supposes that developers themself will decide how this possibility can be used in a system.

Of course, when systen translate such complex description, it gets and can save information on moleculare (overrelational) semantics - I mean it as a molecular schema which combines a number of atomic relations schemas. Really this information links definition of molecular semantic units (let us call them MSU futher.. or let me call it just object:) and relations schemas. And IMHO next step is logical enough - we can use this information to translate any commands on MSUs variables (IMHO objects) to commands on relations.
"TheORM" writes a lot about such translation. The result looks like
MSU(O)-Oriented :) managemnt system on relational database.

My opponents cannot understand one simple idea. Speaking on possible relationship between OO-world and RM-world "TheORM" supposes that object's counterpart in relation world is relational data base

x>I presented my "system" based on this ideea at some student contest in Iasi in 199x.
x>I don't claim this was something new. I'm sure I've seen it somewere. x>I simply toyed with the ideea.

(This is
"TheORM"'s third answer on TTM initial questions I spoke about)

This is main requirement allowing organize such a translation.

x>Your system is some kind of CASE tool ? ...... Received on Mon May 08 2006 - 16:40:41 CEST