Re: Poll: Expert user vs. Internals Expert
Date: 26 May 2006 13:59:30 -0700
Message-ID: <1148677169.937724.21500_at_38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> Scary religious beliefs are scary because they are superstition: belief without reason.
More relevant to our discussion, they are unverifiable (ie RM is the best for everything).
> The relational model is carefully defined in a well demarked universe of discourse.
Why is this relevant? What does this allow it achieve?
> Completeness and closure have been demonstrated.
Why is this relevant? What does this allow it achieve?
> It is, then, over the domain for which it is defined, entirely reasonable.
What is it's domain? Maybe its domain is unreasonable.
I don't see the logic here. Could you explain it logically?
While I agree that RM is a good data model for a certain scope and that it's scope is larger that most other data models (ie hierarchal), RM isn't the most general data model. Just as HM falters when modelling the same thing in multiple hierarchies, so does RM under different conditions (ie highly complex/variable data structures, where data requirements are unknown in advance, etc). Received on Fri May 26 2006 - 22:59:30 CEST