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

On Mar 12, 6:08 pm, "Dmitry Shuklin" <shuk..._at_bk.ru> wrote:
> On 10 ÍÁÒ, 18:32, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > - Row A says Aristotle is a Row Z
> > - Row Z says a Human is a mortal.
>
> No,
> Row A has attribute Name = "Aristotle" and attribute Type = RowZ
> Row Z has attribute Lifetime = "mortal"
>
> So here is one join

Hi dimitry,

First let me make it clear i'm an OO coder, as well as having an interest in db theory so I don't have an vested interested in one area more than the other. However I sincerely believe that DB theory over the past 30 years has progressed information modelling through its abandonment of OID's - essentially enforcing that there is no identity outside of attributes. After all this is how we perform identification outside of a system, and so there seems no reason to think we should require an extra mechanism once we are encoding information (especially now our models are logical ones completely separated from physical layer considerations). Row identifiers hence seem superfluous, adding an unnecessary layer of complexity that doesn't actually give me anything /extra/.

Like yourself, I believe there may be scope for a useful middle ground between object and relational approaches (despite their philosophical differences). But I'm not sure what you propose is that middle-ground. Get rid of those OID's, allow me to join objects and work declaratively, and I'll be all ears. J. Received on Tue Mar 13 2007 - 00:54:11 CET