Re: Navigation question

<dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message news:1172783481.330298.311380_at_t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 1, 8:43 am, "Walt" <wami..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
> > "dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1172707120.938940.196760_at_t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > > Who clumps it in with physical navigation?
> >
> > > The Third-Generation Database System Manifesto that I referred to
> > > earlier is one such.
> >
> > I did a quick scan of this document, and found no references to "logical
> > navigation".
>
> No, I don't know if anyone uses that phrase except for me. It speaks
> only against navigation and I'm trying to figure out if it is only
> opposed to physical navigation rather than all database navigation.
> It was referred to in another document (ppt) I downloaded as a place
> to find information on why navigation is bad.
>
> > There were many references to "physical navigation", and
> > several references to "navigation" in general, but no references to
> > "logical navigation".
>
> That is my term. Again, I am still trying to figure what what people
> mean when they indicate that we as a profession have already learned
> that "database navigation" is a bad thing. What navigation is bad,
> what about navigation is bad, and why is it bad. I'm am not
> interested in anything related to physical navigation but to database
> navigation at a logical level (the level where a logical data model
> fits).

I give up. I have no idea what you are talking about.

> What type of navigation do you think that paper is arguing against?

It's arguing against "navigation". Received on Fri Mar 02 2007 - 23:29:33 CET