Re: Generalised approach to storing address details

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:13:57 GMT
Message-ID: <ph2fh.31315$cz.467385@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

JOG wrote:
> Neo wrote:
>

>>>Just because they do this doesn't make it correct. A user's failings do
>>>not reflect on the system they are using. When you employ EAV to
>>>circumvent a schema, you are not using the RM as the logical model,
>>>full stop.
>>
>>Please show a non-EAV solution that meets OP's requirements.

>
> First show me some indication that you understand that the EAV approach
> does not use RM as the logical model, even if it is using a relational
> database as storage, and that EAV = a ternary model = graph data model
> = hyperstructure, depending on your field. I am not trying to make you
> appear stupid, but I do need to guage whether it is worth my time
> continuing to discuss this.

After all these years you still haven't figured out that Neo is a crank?

>>>RM's scope is unarguable. All information can be recorded as propositions,
>>>and all propositions can be represented in the relational model.
>>
>>Any data model can theoretically record any proposition. But the
>>ability to do it systematically varies.

>
> "The ability of a system to record any proposition varies"? That is
> such an overloaded, nebulous and imprecise statement, that its hard to
> glean any meaning from it at all. This was my exact point to you. If
> you want real discussion stop waving your hands in the air and
> construct meaningful (as in specific) statements.

I direct your attention to Date's Principle of Incoherence: "It is extremely difficult to reply coherently to that which is incoherent."

>>Please show how to record the
>>proposition "john likes mary" such that db can answer 1) who likes mary
>>2) john likes who 3) john does what to mary.

>
> Absolutely irrelevant to what we were talking about, but you cannot
> seem to lose that agenda of yours hey. I assume you realise the first
> two are trivial, and the point you are trying to make is that it is not
> possible to extract information about predicates in SQL using the DML.
> Is that your intended point?

Instead of asking the self-aggrandizing ignorant what he intends, which plays into his hand, I suggest you let him know that google is his friend. The design principle he seeks is POOD or the Principle of Orthogonal Design. Received on Sun Dec 10 2006 - 19:13:57 CST