Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

JXStern wrote:

> 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.

You are suggesting that a symmetric n-ary structure is untyped. I disagree.

   But
> "association" has too many connotations to use as the term, either.

Explain to me how you think an asymmetric binary structure expresses more than the symmetric n-ary structure.

> 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.

Low-level? That's a rather dumb thing to say. Set theory is a high-level abstraction of relatively modern invention as is predicate logic. Both are founded on thousands of years of advances in mathematics.

   If that's all you see in RM, then fine.

Please don't try to tell me I see your fantasies in anything. That's just plain old ego-centric lunacy.

   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,

Again, what you say seems nonsensical and rather dumb. If you mean a normalized schema, then that is a direct application of set theory and the relational data model, which is itself equivalent to set theory. To characterize a direct application of something as "above and beyond" the thing is meaningless gibberish.

  and in this attempt, it
> could use some new thinking, features, enhancements, extensibility,
> whatever.

Before you voice such a conclusion, I suggest you should exhibit better understanding of the old thinking. Received on Tue Jun 06 2006 - 17:37:57 CEST