Re: Concurrency in an RDB

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 04:39:16 GMT
Message-ID: <UTHkh.536366$R63.412957@pd7urf1no>

Bob Badour wrote:

> paul c wrote:
> 

>> 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.

> 
> 
> Yeah, there is something: it's called ignorance.
> 
> 


>>> 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.

> 
> 
> What a fucking idiot.
> 
> Paul, was it really necessary to quote that nonsense? If you are going 
> to repeat nonsense, please, point out in plain terms just how 
> nonsensical it is.

Sorry, I guess I'm still mired in the recent syrup. Besides, you do it better. Thanks for the terser improvement. Now I'll go and see if I still have a copy of Voltaire's Bastards which also exposes some of the above attitude for what it is better than I could and helps me sleep well.

(Another great book I remember is "How Does a Poem Mean?" written by a poor poet but a better student of poems than I am of relations. Like poems, math is something we apply to order our thinking, not someting our thinking is ordered by. I suppose some misguided CS professor in need of a summer grant will someday coin the title "how does a string mean?" but will probably not notice the infinity of relations inherent in the good ones. Like the ones recently mentioned here who thought it important to state the limits of stupidity. All I can say in my defence is that I will probably not download or buy it.)

p Received on Wed Dec 27 2006 - 22:39:16 CST