Re: Lets get physical

From: J M Davitt <jdavitt_at_aeneas.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:04:43 GMT
Message-ID: <%kokg.59810$mh.34110@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>

Cimode wrote:
> Are you mentally impaired?
>
> I have posted specific sentences from FP totally negating your initial
> statement that FP would have advocated that TRM is not physical...

Quoting directly from the URI you posted,

      TRM is at a lower level than the relational model (RM),
      it is nevertheless a model, and not a physical implementation.

So, I'm confused: how is it that you assert paulc is incorrect when saying that TRM is not physical?

>
> paul c a écrit :
>
>

>>Cimode wrote:
>>
>>>Check this page
>>>
>>>http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/1548800.htm for more info...
>>>
>>
>>I think one would have to search all the pages to prove it's not there.
>>
>>p

>
>
>
Received on Thu Jun 15 2006 - 21:04:43 CDT