Re: The OverRelational Manifesto. VOCIFEROUS IGNORANCE vs. NUMB DOGMA.

From: U-gene <grigoriev-e_at_yandex.ru>
Date: 18 May 2006 04:38:38 -0700
Message-ID: <1147952318.483227.324950_at_u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>

>>....a bunch of introductory paragraphs...

I'm sorry of taking your time. But if you cannot find any mistakes in this introduction it a good sign for me. I'm just not sure that everybody will agree that it's really correct .

>>...Try to express the proposed feature in a few, or ideally one sentence...
It's a good idea... but can you express such well-known idea(s) as TTM or RDM in "in a few, or ideally one sentence"? Please, give me example(link) how to do it - I will use it as an example of brevity :). Ok? But I'm going to try it anyway.

>>...with the ORM (besides the grandiose name)
I will not use abbrevation "TheORM" in future. But before I want note, that it was abbreviation of "The OverRelational Manifesto"(next I will use only full name of this article), where I describe a kind of relational system named as RxO system (this ''x" between "R" and "O" means multiplication sign) and find possibilites to realize this RxO system on existing system implemented RDM somehow or other.

>>...I believe you are looking at features of relational languages, yes?

Yes. But I'm not sure, that we mean word "relational" in the same way. Does it mean "all data exist as set of relations in a system what uses this language" or "all data are evidently and directly defined as set of relations with this language"? The second means the first, but not conversely.

The mainest feature is that relvars can be defined in other way, not such direct and evident as "CREATE RELVAR RelVarNAME...".. This indirect way allows describe something, what is more complex than single relation and manipulate with data contained in the relvars as with a part of these more complex structure. I can name something what is described with theis complex structure as MSU. The system object, which is user to contain value about some MSU items, "The ObjectRelational Manifesto" calls just as "object". So "The ObjectRelational Manifesto" uses term "object" in different way then term "scalar"(scalar type = relational domain) but this is just using of some term to denote something what exists in system - nothing principial :). RxO-system allows describe objects, create them, manipulate with them (not only with their values but with structure too), and destroy them.

"...In the general case, the specification of an object type includes
1.	the type name;
2.	a list of parent types (unless otherwise is defined explicitly, the
parent type is the Object type implicitly);
3.	a collection of specifications of components, which include (a) the

component name; (b) the value type of the component, and (c), optionally, the set of parameters each one described as a pair <parameter name, value type of the parameter>;

4.	a set of data integrity constraints, i.e., keys...."
...where  "...The value types are the following:
1.	scalar type including the basic ones (numerical, symbolic, Boolean,
etc.) and reference types.
2.	constructed tuple type. A value of this type (hereinafter, a tuple)

is a set of pairs "an attribute name, a value of the attribute of the scalar type." Accordingly, the tuple type is defined as a set of pairs "attribute name, scalar type of the attribute." 3. constructed set type. A value of this type (hereinafter, a set) is a set of scalar or tuple values. Accordingly, a set-type variable is defined as (variable_name AS SET OF name_of_scalar_or_tuple_type)..."

As you can see there is two kinds of types in RxO system - value (and they are very-very similar to TTM's "types that allow relational assignment") and object type - this type is more complex than single relations (0NF). Object types partisipate in inheritance and can have attributed component.

....Oops:) It's a second page in Word but I'm just beginnig. I'm really trying to be short, but I prefer to be accurate in all my statements becouse I'm really afraid to become misunderstood trying to be short. I just understand that if I don't explane some term and some beginning ideas I'll hear "stupid" and "ignorant" And I'm not sure if you have a time to read it. I can continue here (just give me a sign), or you can find all this in my paper (anyway I've citated it here). Received on Thu May 18 2006 - 13:38:38 CEST