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: JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R_at_gte.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 03:24:01 GMT
Message-ID: <l0t9825ijvu704mv37411qm4shqj67ao9u@4ax.com>


On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:59:46 GMT, Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> So, what is the alternative to an "adjacency-only" RM?
>
>I once again object to the silly idea that the RM depends on location.

RM depends on algebra if you like, set theory if you prefer.

My comments about "adjacency" aren't meant to imply physical location, just an untyped (because supposedly universal) association. But "association" has too many connotations to use as the term, either.

I might make the same protest against set theory itself, if set theory made the same pretense at domain representation that RM does. But everyone knows set theory is a low-level, if powerful (maybe even universal) tool. If that's all you see in RM, then fine. But I look at the idea of a normalized data model, and see an attempt to do something above and beyond a raw set theory, and in this attempt, it could use some new thinking, features, enhancements, extensibility, whatever.

J. Received on Mon Jun 05 2006 - 22:24:01 CDT

Original text of this message

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