Re: Navigation question

dawn wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:

>> dawn wrote:
>>> In another thread "navigation" is again mentioned as undesirable.

[snip]

>> Nothing good, nothing bad here, just: navigation is something that
>> does not exist within the RM.

[snip]

>> 'From a fk in a child to a parent tuple'
>> is at best metaphor (and btw. borrows hierarchical terms).

No.

> or is there some better way to say this?

AFAIK not yet. Please stay focused and don't state your questions as loaded as this.

>> You want to discuss navigation? Ok. The RM will not proliferate
>> vocabulary. Furthermore, the first thing people will associate
>> it with is the physical level hidden by the DBMS. You have clearly
>> stated that that is not what you want to talk about.

> Yes. My understanding from responses to date is that thie type of
> navigation is not considered bad and not considered logical
> navigation, but more of a user interface conceptual navigation. Each
> user event permits us to start anew so that the code does not navigate
> the database, only the user does. So, while the physical is at a
> lower level than I want to discuss navigation, user-event driven
> "navigation" of a database is at a higher level.

The physical stuff is lower, so this must be higher, right? Well, I do not think so. Earlier, maybe, part of it.

(For the RM-only zealots out there I am thinking of the place in time in the whole of the construction/growth of databases, not just the moment from which all is clear and downhill sliding after - after the specs have been signed, sealed and delivered. Yes, this is database theory. RM-only zealots are stupid, not just ignorant: "Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education." -- Bertrand Russell )

As soon as someone tells me something is 'higher level' I think: on which stairway?

Higher level - than what? why is it higher? How do you measure that? Received on Fri Feb 23 2007 - 01:34:18 CET