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

From: Bernard Peek <bap_at_alpha.shrdlu.com>
Date: 14 Mar 2007 16:00:54 GMT
Message-ID: <slrnevg6nk.bcg.bap@alpha.shrdlu.com>

On 2007-03-14, Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> The word "object" is essentially meaningless. It has no clear definition
> and gets used to mean a variety of things. Those who use it frequently
> do so to impede communication.

The word, in the context of object-oriented languages and databases, seems to me to have precisely two meanings. One is the set of identifiable things and the other is the set of computer-based models of identifiable things.

It does impede communication, but it's not for want of trying. I think it's the universality of the concept that may be at the heart of the problem. The RM fans ask whether something is an object and naturally get the answer "yes." They then ask whether an apparently different thing is an object and again get the same answer. The problem isn't a failure to understand the answer, it's a failure to understand the question.

The relational model certainly works and has been doing stirling service for many years. However that doesn't mean that a new paradigm, for want of a better word, can't be equally valid. An internally consistent and demonstrably pragmatic object theory would stand alongside relational theory without requiring to be validated by mapping its concepts to those in RM.

I don't think that there is yet a model that models object-oriented systems satisfactorily. Which makes comparing it to RM doubly pointless.

-- 
bap_at_shrdlu.com
In search of cognoscenti

Received on Wed Mar 14 2007 - 11:00:54 CDT