Re: Nulls, integrity, the closed world assumption and events
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 17:32:35 GMT
Message-ID: <Ty6th.4025$1x.68386_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>>JOG wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Yes, legitimize. You don't honestly believe her horseshit legitimately
>>deserves a (civil) reply, do you?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>That doesn't surprize me. Networks are seductive to naive programmers
>>who frequently learn first about arrays, trees, lists etc. before
>>learning any real fundamentals or theory. I had been programming for
>>four or five years already in a variety of assembler and high level
>>languages before I ever learned what a push-down automaton was, and I
>>graduated with a degree in EE without ever encountering the relational
>>model or even predicate calculus.
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 17:32:35 GMT
Message-ID: <Ty6th.4025$1x.68386_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
JOG wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote: > >
>>JOG wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Yes, legitimize. You don't honestly believe her horseshit legitimately
>>deserves a (civil) reply, do you?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>That doesn't surprize me. Networks are seductive to naive programmers
>>who frequently learn first about arrays, trees, lists etc. before
>>learning any real fundamentals or theory. I had been programming for
>>four or five years already in a variety of assembler and high level
>>languages before I ever learned what a push-down automaton was, and I
>>graduated with a degree in EE without ever encountering the relational
>>model or even predicate calculus.
> > > Its a problem that is the scourge of the computer world. For an area > named "Information Technology" it seems the seductive obsession of > analysing Technology utterly predominates, and analysing the important > part, "Information", is completely ignored throughout industry and > education (save a couple of islands, such as Warwick University where > Darwen teaches). I worry about the lack of resources to address this, > especially with sites such as debunk being defunct. > > As an eternal optimist however, I await the day of Proposition Oriented > Programming and somone manages to fix the /correct/ side of the > 'impedence mismatch'. (I've just coined the phrase POP by the way. Its > a winner I tell you).
"Pop" sounds like a weasel word to me. Received on Mon Jan 22 2007 - 18:32:35 CET