Re: What databases have taught me

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 17:13:28 +0200
Message-ID: <449ea7b6$0$31649$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>

Neo wrote:

>>>>>In cases where data is highly structured, 
>>>>>representing them with a RMDB provides many advantages.
>>>>>However in cases where data is highly unstructured, 
>>>>>representing them with a RMDB can also become more
>>>>>difficult and starts to lose some of its advantages.

>

>>>>Unstructured *anything* is going to be a bit difficult ...
>>>... the term highly-variable structure may be better.
>>... better, but the vocabulary is still in need of much improvement.

>
> how about: The advantages provided by RMDBs are diminished when:
> 1) the structure of know data is highly-varied (or non-uniform).
> 2) the structure of new data is unknown.

What I read is an unbalanced, vague impression. FWIW: it doesn't make me say: "No no no, this is completely wrong!" - but that's about it (BTW I'd leave the RM out, in this case. Just DB).

In order to be able to assess or even sensibly talk about such things, you need a better vocabulary. You snipped the stuff that might be relevant to that.

Here is a vague impression of mine.
I think this problem area is related
to an earlier conversation we had:

---

>> It is important to find a good way of stating requirements.
>> Up to now I don't think you have found it.
>
>

> :) You are expecting a static requirement.

No.

> My requirement is how to best meet dynamic
> requirements (ie like those of an andriod).

Yes. So I'll repeat:
It is important to find a good way of stating requirements. Up to now I don't think you have found it.

---

-- 
"The person who says it cannot be done
should not interrupt the person doing it."
Chinese Proverb.

Received on Sun Jun 25 2006 - 17:13:28 CEST