Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> On 2006-12-27, paul c wrote:
>
>> What possible reason would one have to apply relational operators to
>> strings, at least strings as most humans would read or write them?
>
>
> I can't see any. But I also read this as a shortcoming of the relational
> model.
>
> We do have a number of operations on strings and also full-fledged
> running prose which are practically important, but which haven't yet
> been neatly included in the relational model of data. Say, the
> equivalence between a low level string-of-characters representation, and
> a fully parsed, hierarchical, more annotated, "more semantic" one.
> Apparently there's something about text and/or strings which isn't
> straightforwardly amenable to relational treatment.
>
> Given the current, practical importance of both running text and the RM,
> I wonder why a) there haven't been any genuine attempts at treating
> strings, text and language in general in relational terms, or b) why the
> RM folks won't confess it can't be done, given the current state of
> knowledge, thereby acknowledging that there is data that just isn't
> currently amenable to relational treatment.
I enjoyed the recent strings attributed to that genius Rabbie Burns.
Where was the data?
p
Received on Wed Dec 27 2006 - 17:17:09 CST
