Re: Poll: Expert user vs. Internals Expert

From: dawn <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com>
Date: 27 May 2006 07:54:36 -0700
Message-ID: <1148741676.256894.76090_at_j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>


Jay Dee wrote:
> 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.

My issues are with its application.

> 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.

Yes. My only issues are with the application of the RM, not within the RM itself. I have no beef with the mathematics.

> I can't think of any aspect of the relational model that is
> simply opinion. What have you got in mind?

Belief that it should be used as THE model for stored data in our software products. --dawn

> > cheers! --dawn
> > P.S. These two excerpted comments are clearly digs, but gentlemanly.
> > Thanks.
>
> Digs? Nope.

Perhaps we define that term differently too. Ah well. Received on Sat May 27 2006 - 16:54:36 CEST

Original text of this message