Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation

"Cimode" <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1178174344.866049.272810_at_h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 2 mai, 21:47, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> > Cimode wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > Brian,
> >
> > > Don't you think you are overcomplicating things?
> >
> > I certainly do. RT isn't as complicated or subtle as this thread is
> > making it out to be.
> I was not thinking about *subtleness*. I am having trouble following
> Brian's wordy line of thought. I am not sure he and I have do not
> have the same perception of what logical and physical independence
> is. I was also refering to terms I am not familiar with such as
> *database state*. To me they are totally foreign to RM formal
> theory.
>
> Maybe you could clarify. Thanks.
> Regards...
>
> [Snipped]

I think that "state" is a fundamental concept in computing. As such, Brian and others ought to be able to use it to communicate rather precisely, without needing to present a formal definition. If you know what a "database" is and you know what a "state" is, I think you know what a "database state" is.

Having said that, I'll admit that I'm often lost by Brian's argument. He seems to be arguing that transaction atomicity is an undesirable feature of our data model. If I'm reading that right, I abandon the effort to understand the rest of what he's saying. Received on Thu May 03 2007 - 12:05:54 CEST