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

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:12:59 GMT
Message-ID: <f4AJh.9899$>

JXStern wrote:

> On 12 Mar 2007 10:43:17 -0700, "Dmitry Shuklin" <> wrote:

>>>That's not news, that an unconstrained description has constrained
>>>grammers as a subset, that type 0 grammar has type 1,2,3 grammars as
>>>"special cases", but the general case does not have some of the
>>>properties of its simplified, special cases.  
>>Agree. But if some system allows to implement type 0 grammar then also
>>it allow implement constrants and emulate type 1,2,3 grammars but not
>>vice versa.

> Well, I don't know.
> The value of an RDBMS is that it holds ALL the data.

I don't necessarily agree with that. Some of the worst atrocities I have seen come from naive designers thinking normalization involves sticking every piece of text imaginable into some sort of lookup table.

Then again, I would like to see a lot more managed data handled by a dbms. The key to that is extending the system to everywhere one needs to manage data.

> I'm interested in extensions to the relational model and SQL (or query
> language better than SQL), in the general direction of OO languges,
> but it is the constraint on storage and the cannonical forms that make
> RDBMS work, and just tacking on some swizzled spaghetti storage may
> have its place, but it's really mixing apples and oranges, I don't see
> that it enlightens either side.

When you say "in the direction of OO languages", what specific features of OO languages do you desire? Received on Tue Mar 13 2007 - 17:12:59 CET

Original text of this message