Re: Poll: Expert user vs. Internals Expert
From: Jay Dee <ais01479_at_aeneas.net>
Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 12:17:16 GMT
Message-ID: <grXdg.49857$P2.48664_at_tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> Feel free to call me Dawn, JD ;-)
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> I have due respect for all aspects of the RM that are not simply
> opinion.
Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 12:17:16 GMT
Message-ID: <grXdg.49857$P2.48664_at_tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>
dawn wrote:
> Jay Dee wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> <snip>
>
>>Feeling a bit fanatic today, DW?
>
>
> Feel free to call me Dawn, JD ;-)
>
> <snip>
>
>>Why do you treat the relational model as though it is simply a >>taxonomy of opinions? Something stinks, DW...
>
>
> I have due respect for all aspects of the RM that are not simply
> opinion.
My suspicion is that you're not sufficiently familiar with the relational model to realize how narrowly it's defined. Many times, IT types have complained about what they thought were aspects of the relational model -- when, in fact, they were complaining about defects in a DBMS that called itself "relational" or an ERWin "relational" feature.
> cheers! --dawn
> P.S. These two excerpted comments are clearly digs, but gentlemanly.
> Thanks.
Digs? Nope. Received on Sat May 27 2006 - 14:17:16 CEST