Re: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view

"Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1173540150.918109.138900_at_p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 6:15 am, "Walt" <wami..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
> > "Dmitry Shuklin" <shuk..._at_bk.ru> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1173440677.467627.35460_at_q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Note, that the concept of references to the rows is also not new and
> > > was embodied long ago in such famous RDBMS, as Oracle.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > It's not only not new, but also not relational.
>
> It's not only not relational, but also not necessary.
>
> Every relation, by definition, has a set of attributes
> whose values are unique, and which can therefore
> be used in relational expressions to uniquely identify
> a row. That's all you'd get out of a pointer. Further,
> by requiring the unnecessary pointer, you constrain
> implementations unnecessarily.
>
>
> > Anyone relying on using a reference to a row as implicitly referencing
the
> > data contained in the row is suing the graph model of data, and not the
> > relational model of data.
>
> Hmmm. Various of us have pondered many different ways to
> help educate the programming public about the value of the
> relational model, but I don't think anyone has ever proposed
> involving the courts before. But as an American I love the idea!
> Let us sue other data models for false advertising.
>
>
> Marshall
>
> PS. Sorry.
>

My bad. Typo. "suing" should be "using". Received on Sat Mar 10 2007 - 16:54:44 CET