Re: Nulls, integrity, the closed world assumption and events

Bob Badour wrote:

> JOG wrote:
>
> > dawn wrote:
> >
> >>JOG wrote:
> >>
> >>>dawn wrote:
> >>>
>
> [nonsense bullshit snipped]
>
>
> >>>- the politics
> >>>of funding requires not publishing results that destroy all of your job
> >>>security or future income streams, so people's /abject/ disillusionment
> >>>is substantially unreflected in publications.
> >>
> >>I very much understand this, as I do know a bit about this--enough to
> >>resist any attempts to fund my own research at all, desiring to be
> >>completely free from any external pressures (and, therefore, just
> >>engaging in such efforts on the side, instead of picking up knitting at
> >>my age).
>
> Please. Do the world a huge favour and pick up knitting.
>
>
> >>>Nonetheless the
> >>>theoretical discussion of its insufficiency should have been a good
> >>>place to start.
>
> [more bullshit nonsense snipped]
>
>
> > I am not clear what a di-graph with trees on nodes is (I envision some
> > sort of nested graph structure). But let me say my grievances with
> > graph based models come from bitter experience of working on a
> > commercial implementation of such a thing (node identifiers and all)
> > and developing an associated query language, for about two years. Given
> > irreducible tuples, confusing what we ended up terming a structural
> > layer (di-graphs) with the logical layer (only possible using n-ary
> > edges) became an intractable problem - and one that I now see
> > everywhere graph models emerge. We tried damn hard to work round it's
> > deficits, and eventually had to concede defeat. The experience taught
> > me that an n-ary logical model with value only addressing is essential
> > in my experience. I wish I had known what I have learnt since back then.
>
> Jim, why do you legitimize her snake oil?

Legitamize? All I seem to do is disagree vehemently, and try and explain why. Its wearing me out.

> FWIW, in the late 1980's, I
> spent three or four years maintaining the source code for a proprietary
> network model dbms.
>
> In the 1990's I correctly predicted that object dbmses were going
> nowhere because I could recognize exactly what they were. I saw people
> who might have contributed something waste a decade of their lives.
>
> Oh well, it could be worse. When people were too stupid to listen to
> Churchill, millions of people died. A few wasted careers and some failed
> software projects pale in comparison.

Aye, people make their choices, but not nice to see a waste of talent. Looks like there are many common experiences of network models on cdt. Received on Mon Jan 22 2007 - 16:34:14 CET