Re: why hierarchy?
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:27:33 GMT
Message-ID: <FmPxg.240709$iF6.202134_at_pd7tw2no>
>
> I do not assert to predict the future unknown. I only assert that dbd
> is impacted less by future unknown data requirements than any other
> data representation methodology because dbd's is more general. Would
> someone be willing to demonstrate otherwise?
>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:27:33 GMT
Message-ID: <FmPxg.240709$iF6.202134_at_pd7tw2no>
Neo wrote:
>>> To verify which method's underlying data model is more general, one can >>> observe the impact on existing schema/data/query when meeting future >>> unknown data requirements (to be proposed by someone else). Would >>> someone be willing to engage in this example? >> The question is patently impossible/ridiculous. Only a mystic can predict the 'future unknown'.
>
> I do not assert to predict the future unknown. I only assert that dbd
> is impacted less by future unknown data requirements than any other
> data representation methodology because dbd's is more general. Would
> someone be willing to demonstrate otherwise?
>
If you're making the claim, it is up to you to show how it so, not for others to refute it. I suspect the former isn't possible as it would necessarily require some unknown to become known for any demonstration to work. This would seem a fallacy if one agrees that the known can't also be unknown.
p Received on Wed Jul 26 2006 - 21:27:33 CEST