Re: Temporal database - no end date

Bob Badour wrote:
> You have contradicted yourself. First, you state that it is impossible
> to accurately model time as discrete points, and then you admit to using
> discrete points.

Jeebus H. Kerist walking in the shroud.

Is this the same Bob Badour who poops in his hand and flings the result with loud hoots at anyone who introduces notions of physical implementaiton into discussions of the relational data model? Who labels those of us prepared to explain and make the engineering and programming language compromises concerning sets and multi-sets, missing information etc as "morons", "imbeciles", "fools" or whatever?

Read What Data / Darwen and Lorentzos WROTE. They state explictly that they want to REASON about time using 'time quanta'. I then provided a perfectly straightforward example of why that won't work IN THEORY, and explain why a THEORETICAL temporal model needs to work on a continuum.

Then I am asked about how - as a practical matter - I would implement such a beast, and I respond with a practical engineering answer. But the Great Big Glaring difference is that my THEORETICAL model would allow me to return useful answers to the kind of 'mean time to failure' example I introduced above, while the DDL proposal would not.

And THEN you vomit up this gem of deliberate misunderstanding:

> Neither computers nor models reason.

Truly, a diamond of intellectual insight. Received on Sat Jan 20 2007 - 18:16:57 CET