Re: Nulls, integrity, the closed world assumption and events
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 05:35:33 GMT
Message-ID: <F2Ysh.3931$1x.66030_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
JOG wrote:
> dawn wrote:
>
>>JOG wrote:
>>
>>>dawn wrote:
>>>
>>>>Keith H Duggar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>dawn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Walt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Many have attempted, but you have been expounding on the same incorrect
>>>>>>>ideas for something like five years now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Could you point me to proof that something I expound is incorrect?
>>>>>>Perhaps just starting by telling me what I think to be true that you
>>>>>>think false, or vice versa, would be helpful. I would very much
>>>>>>appreciate knowing.
>>>>>
>>>>>RM != SQL
>>>>>QED
>>>>>
>>>>>Keith -- Fraud 6
>>>>
>>>>Hi Keith - I do not equate RM with SQL. I do think, however, that we
>>>>would not have SQL were it not for the RM.
>>>>The RM could be seen as a primary "culprit" in giving us SQL.
>>>>Additionally, most, if not all, implementations that are based on the
>>>>relational model employ SQL as the means of interacting with the DBMS.
>>>>Marketing and other materials for a couple of decades now use the
>>>>acronym RDBMS when referring to SQL-DBMS's for good reason.
>>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>It is not that you confuse RM with SQL.
>>
>>Good, because I have heard that a number of times, and I did not think
>>it to be the case.
>>
>>
>>>It is that because RM doesn't
>>>do everything you want
>>
>>I don't even think of it as "doing" anything, but as "being" so that
>>might be a problem.
>>
>>
>>>(and only an idiot would think that the RM is
>>>the last word in data management),
>>
>>Agreed. For a couple of decades it dominated in the world of database
>>buzzwords, however. That is only starting to change (perhaps) very
>>recently.
>>
>>
>>>you promote throwing the baby out
>>>with the bath water,
>>
>>I can think of a few things I would throw out (the three I mentioned).
> > > This is RM != SQL again. You stated that only _one_ of the three was > relevant to the modern view of RM, but you now want to throw out three > - this is illogic. > >
>>I don't know if those are what you are calling "the baby"
> > > No pointers. No dependence on manual navigation. Thinking in terms of > propositions not objects. Essentially the information principle. We > must not lose the invaluable insights if we are progress to even better > techniques. > >
>>or if it is
>>related to my questions (and not fully developed opinions) on typing,
>>metadata as data (related to DBMS constraints or lack thereof), or
>>additional functions, such as navigation, in addition to set-based
>>functions.
> > > Functions on datatypes are external to the underlying algebra. So again > not part of the RM, and can be happily part of a DBMS. > >
>>I do not throw out relations nor functions on them, but I
>>do favor also talking about relations as functions, since I have rarely
>>(if ever) worked with relations that are not in data-based software
>>development.
> > > A db-tuple is mathematical function. A db-relation is a commonly > structured set of these functions. > >
>>>and losing all of the invaluable insights that
>>>Codd brought.
>>
>>I definitely do not want to make the same mistake made by some who
>>started with the RM around '70 or thereafter and dumped the wealth of
>>best practices in data-based software development that preceeded it.
What a fucking idiot Dawn is. The best practices pre-1970 were shitty. Codd convinced one user group struggling with the best way to deal with "5 difficult problems in data management" by writing one-liners for each of the 5 problems.
Dawn is a clueless git. I wish you would stop encouraging her. Received on Mon Jan 22 2007 - 06:35:33 CET