Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 3 Jun 2006 14:35:19 -0700
Message-ID: <1149370519.837971.87920@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>


<< Hold on right there. No one is talking about implementation, much  less about 'direct image implementation', whatever it is. Please  state clearly what the difference is between two expressions describing
 the variable that can contain a three dimensional object (except minor  syntactical pecularities).>>

I have stated as several times in the initial question (feel free to reread) that the main purpose of the thread would be exchange on that matter. If you believe this subject is uninteresting then feel free not to participate. If you do not know what a direct image implementation is I suggest you do some reading on transrelational model by Steve TARIN. As my time is as limited as yours, I suggest you do some research on that before we can exchange in a fruitful manner. Check the following link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransRelational_model

<<What's that supposed to mean ?>>I am suggesting that a physical adressing scheme based only on a vertical and horizontal dimensions (not relation dimensions but mathematical dimension) can only allow only a bidimensional representation of a relvar at runtime.

<<That does not make any obvious sense>>I perfectly know this is not *obvious* which is the reason I am opening a thread to exchange with the nice fellows here. But not obvious does not make it nonsensical.

Thank your for your reply.

vc wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > <<What's the substantial difference with repect to 'dimensionality' ?>>
> > Mainly that SQL current implementation are direct image implementation
> > which limits their ability to represent relvar adequately.
>
>
> Hold on right there. No one is talking about implementation, much
> less about 'direct image implementation', whatever it is. Please
> state clearly what the difference is between two expressions describing
> the variable that can contain a three dimensional object (except minor
> syntactical pecularities).
>
> >They can
> > only manipulate relvar on a representation per representation basis.
> >
>
> What's that supposed to mean ?
>
> > <<See above, and what analogy do you have in mind ?>>Please read above.
> > A ruby's cube has 3 dimensions (width, length, depth).
>
> So do both the relval and the SQL object descriptions. It's, like, a
> trivial observation.
>
> > When you look
> > at one face of the cube you see only 2 dimensions. These 2 dimensions
> > are on possible representation of the cube.
>
> That does not make any obvious sense.
>
> >
Received on Sat Jun 03 2006 - 16:35:19 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US