Re: I think that relational DBs are dead. See link to my article inside
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 00:00:15 GMT
Message-ID: <jciqg.5849$pu3.131946_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
>
> Not yet. Logical identity exists. But it strong only for each context.
> developer. When I am doing experiments i found that it is ok to make
> almost all identification in all contexts equal. but not in all
> contexts. let take object 1000 for example. In global context (sector)
> it represent meta descriptor to attribure 'name'. if some object has a
> name then object has an attribute 1000. but attribute 1000 also has its
> own name. so object 1000 has attribute 1000. if you dereference OID
> 1000 in global context you got instance of AttributeDescriptor for
> attribute 'Name'. If you dereference OID 1000 in some object - you got
> name of this object. If you dereference OID 1000 inside context of OID
> 1000 then you got string 'Name'.
>
> So in each context OID 1000 references different instances.
> Each context == object instance.
>
>
>
>
>
> it is very interesting question. i can't answer yes or no. may be right
> answer is 'this question is not applicable to my DB' but it is
> uninteresting answer. Let i try to describe what i have implemented and
> you decide for youself do i support this or not.
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 00:00:15 GMT
Message-ID: <jciqg.5849$pu3.131946_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Dmitry Shuklin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>
>>>What differ my DB from the rest? : >>> >>>- one object can have a many ObjectIDs >>>- one ObjectID can address many different object instances >> >>In short, no logical identity whatsoever. Sounds, um, charming. ::rolls >>eyes::
>
>
> Not yet. Logical identity exists. But it strong only for each context.
>>From one context to anoter identity not strong and all depends from
> developer. When I am doing experiments i found that it is ok to make
> almost all identification in all contexts equal. but not in all
> contexts. let take object 1000 for example. In global context (sector)
> it represent meta descriptor to attribure 'name'. if some object has a
> name then object has an attribute 1000. but attribute 1000 also has its
> own name. so object 1000 has attribute 1000. if you dereference OID
> 1000 in global context you got instance of AttributeDescriptor for
> attribute 'Name'. If you dereference OID 1000 in some object - you got
> name of this object. If you dereference OID 1000 inside context of OID
> 1000 then you got string 'Name'.
>
> So in each context OID 1000 references different instances.
> Each context == object instance.
>
>
>
>>So, can we assume it fully supports join, project, extend, union, >>intersect, transitive closure, restrict, the existential quantifier and >>the universal quantifier? Or do you not consider the lack of any of >>those 'restrictions'?
>
>
> it is very interesting question. i can't answer yes or no. may be right
> answer is 'this question is not applicable to my DB' but it is
> uninteresting answer. Let i try to describe what i have implemented and
> you decide for youself do i support this or not.
In short, no. What you have implemented is mind-numbingly restricted and feeble.
[longwinded no snipped] Received on Tue Jul 04 2006 - 02:00:15 CEST