JOG wrote:
> dawn wrote:
>
>>JOG wrote:
>>
>>>dawn wrote:
>>>
>>>>Marshall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>dawn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree. If we are going to start somewhere and move forward, we might
>>>>>>be well-served to look to what works today outside of the RM (even
>>>>>>though it, of course, typically markets itself as relational). Is it
>>>>>>less expensive to work with Cache' than Oracle given such and such an
>>>>>>environment? If so, why?
>>>>>
>>>>>Is there theory behind any of this? Any mathematical models or other
>>>>>formalisms? It seems to me that comparing Cache with Oracle for
>>>>>TCO is not on-topic on c.d.t.
>>>>>
>>>>>Does any of "what works today outside of the RM" have any theory
>>>>>behind it? This is a theory newsgroup after all.
>>>>
>>>>Hi Marshall. The reason I originally came to this list was to learn
>>>>what it was about the theory that lead the industry down a path of
>>>>throwing out some good features such as lists, which I have used as my
>>>>primary example. I learned from this forum and elsewhere that the
>>>>theory has come back around to now permit nested structures, while a
>>>>huge amount of software implementations are stuck, for practical
>>>>purposes, with the flawed theory of what was once known as 1NF.
>>>
>>>I think the initial interpretation of 1NF was confused rather than
>>>'flawed' - at the end of the day all theories are developed
>>>iteratively.
>>
>>OK, or perhaps "the use of 1NF" was flawed, while there is nothing
>>wrong with coining and defining it. I'm not sure that "nonsimple
>>domains" (in the definition) was ever nailed down as precise
>>mathematics. But if the mathematicians tell me the mathematics was not
>>flawed, then I'm good with that. It is the application of that
>>mathematics to data (the modeling of data) where my interests lie. The
>>mistake was requiring software development teams to model data in what
>>was termed 1NF.
>
>
> Well, either way, at least we are agreed that the modern relational
> model is not absolutely identical to its 36 year old counterpart, and
> some of the rough edges have been smoothed out. Certainly accepts
> complex types. A lot of people don't realise this, and its up to us to
> let people know Dawn, especially those who create the software based on
> RM.
>
>
>>>Of course in math, a relation can contain an element from
>>>any domain, and once RM became established this was picked up on
>>>relatively quickly.
>>
>>I gather that you mean "in theory" it was picked up relatively quickly.
>> I'm not heavily tapped into what everyone out there is doing, but my
>>pals are not defining new domains right and left.
Perhaps her pals are smarter than she is; although, that wouldn't be
saying much. Then again, perhaps not.
>>>I think it's pretty much accepted now that how one
>>>operates on that complex element is not within the remit of the RM
>>>itself, and as such the DBMS must handle its decomposition.
>>
>>This is a fine distinction, but I'll buy that "relational theory" can
Why would anyone give a flying fuck what this embecile "will buy" ?
She's a moron. Nobody cares.
Received on Fri Aug 11 2006 - 23:20:00 CDT
