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

Bob Badour wrote:

> 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.

Exactly. Imagaine how middle management would love it. Received on Mon Jan 22 2007 - 18:51:55 CET