Re: Generalised approach to storing address details

Bob Badour wrote:
> 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?

I have never killfiled anyone on these boards out of general principle, and these were my final attempts before changing that. I seem also to have an urge to understand exactly why a crank does not realise that he is in fact a crank, and not some misunderstood savant.

>
>
> >>>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.

Because we know he won't read it of course.

Nevertheless, being able to determine which predicates are fulfilled by propositions containing a certain value would be a useful feature that SQL lacks, and which ought be easily implementable relationally in a DBMS such as Oracle, given its master relation. This is something that neo keeps intimating to (without having a clue he is doing so I believe), a minor but potentially valid point drowning in the rest of his guff. The key message of course is that this is an SQL issue and orthogonal to the RM, and that in not realizing this he is throwing the baby out with the bath water with the invention of yet another theory-less and retrograde navigational database. Received on Mon Dec 11 2006 - 03:18:33 CET