Re: A database theory resource - ideas

On 17 mar, 16:16, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi cimode - thanks for the feedback. I have found your posts a lot
> more constructive recently.
Normal. I changed perspective. For more info on the reasons.

http://groups.google.com.br/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_frm/thread/49a8420d5421274e/#

> I would say that I don't want the resource
> to seem like an RM advert, rather something more neutral, focusing on
> the theory of what makes /good data modelling/. It just so happens
> that RM matches most of them, but I don't want to preclude that there
> will be other models in the future that also do (I don't think any of
> us think the current RM will be the last word).
Agreed. I believe we are *still* at the infancy of data management as an science relatively to other sciences. RM was always meant as a foundation no more no less. It may certainly evolve, have new names but I doubt its underlying principles will change immediately. Think about the following analogy: knowing psychology is about 100 year old, would you thrust a psychologist who has not studied Freud's psychanalytical methodology?

> * A data modelling introduction section (good idea)
> * Talk about the positive nature of content-based addressing as
> opposed to just the negative aspects of OID's.
> * On why are set operations are preferable to procedural approaches
>
> I am currently uncertain about "The Impedance Mismatch Myth", and your
> other suggestions are outside of my remit of knowledge so I would not
> be confident in addressing them thoroughly. regards J.

The *impedance mismatch myth* is one of the most enduring hypes I have seen.
You may also think about a *Open for Contributions*/*Requests for contributions* for helping feeding your site areas (with articles, publications, links)...That way you won't have to do all the work. You will have to do some rereading though to determine the quality of the posts. Hope this helps... Received on Sat Mar 17 2007 - 19:16:45 CET