Re: Lets get physical

paul c wrote:
> J M Davitt wrote:
> > Cimode wrote:
> >> paul c wrote:
> >>
> >>> Like some others here (as best as I can recall), I've puzzled over
> >>> comments such as the TRM not being a physical layer.
> >>
> >> Anybody who stated has not a clue about RM...What a stupid
> >> comment...who advocated that? I certainly did'nt...
> >> ...
>
> FP, I think. Might find it at dbdebunk.com. Not sure about CJ Date.

If you consider that FP and CJ Date think that TRM is not anything else than an implementation model for RM working on physical layer of representation you are delluding yourself. TRM defines clearly physical oriented concepts...

This is from dbdebunk.com

<<The TransRelational™ Model is an implementation approach, not a replacement of the relational model.>> (FP)

<<a detailed description of all aspects of TRM, including update operations and databases stored on disk.>>

If you want more information read FP paper

GO FASTER! THE TRANSRELATIONAL™ APPROACH TO DBMS IMPLEMENTATION]
> p
Received on Thu Jun 15 2006 - 21:23:06 CEST