Re: Poll: Expert user vs. Internals Expert
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 20:05:35 GMT
Message-ID: <jcJdg.40558$mh.22300_at_tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>
dawn wrote:
> Neo wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>>Certainly, any offering SQL, &c as query language or manipulation language don't implement the relational model. >> >>Then what data model do SQL Server and Access implement?
>
>
> Good question, Neo. I await a clear, logical response.
>
> <RM thinking>
> There is only one true data model, the Relational Model. Everything
> that is not the RM is bad. Nothing that employs the RM exists. You
> cannot poke holes in RM claims by addressing any existing products,
> only by addressing the theory. The RM is predicate logic and set
> theory.
In a word: wrong. Predicate logic is predicate logic and set theory is set theory. The relational model is the relational model.
> So if you disagree with anything written under the heading of
> the RM, then you are stupid.
There are other reasons some may "disagree with anything written under the heading of the RM" -- whatever that means.
Enough with the tautology, already.
> If we write anything under the heading of
> the RM,
Again, WTF does this mean?
> then it is truth (although we may change the meaning of our
> terminology later if there is a need to obscure changes to our thinking
> while we adjust to our new understanding of the truth). We are the
> keepers of the truth
Truth doesn't need keeping.
> and you either agree with us or you are the enemy
> and we must drive you out by whatever means in order to defend the
> truth.
> </RM thinking>
Feeling a bit fanatic today, DW?
> Fortunately, the world has encountered this type of thinking before,
> among religious fundamentalists. Unfortunately, society has not
> figured out how to address it. Such fundamentalism in any religion is
> scary, the RM being no exception.
Utter nonsense. Scary religious beliefs are scary because they are superstition: belief without reason.
The relational model is carefully defined in a well demarked universe of discourse. Completeness and closure have been demonstrated. It is, then, over the domain for which it is defined, entirely reasonable. One who embraces logic would then conclude that anything which contradicts the relational model is unreasonable.
> But, of course, I do like logic and set theory, employing such while
> working with non-relational databases. Cheers! --dawn
You /like/ logic? And set theory? Do you also /like/ chocolate? How do you feel about gravity: do you /like/ that, too? WTF are you trying to make us believe you wrote?
Why do you treat the relational model as though it is simply a taxonomy of opinions? Something stinks, DW... Received on Fri May 26 2006 - 22:05:35 CEST