Re: How would a relational operating system look like?

On 9 juin, 06:43, "Brian Selzer" <b..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote:
> "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1181331457.491832.23120_at_p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 4 juin, 19:58, "Brian Selzer" <b..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote:
> >> "DBMS_Plumber" <paul_geoffrey_br..._at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1180976599.740262.134510_at_k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...> On Jun 3,
> >> 7:57 pm, "Brian Selzer" <b..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote:
> >> >> Are domains variable in a relational operating system?
>
> >> > Brian! Think bigger, man!
>
> >> > Not only are domains extensible, but even the set of operators in the
> >> > algebra!
>
> >> I'm just wondering how each and every atomic value (file) in a relational
> >> operating system can be located in one and only one place so that it can
> >> be
> >> shared by multiple users at the same time.
>
> > Atomic values are no shared by users. Atomic values are a part of
> > data layer. User interact only one possible the representation of a
> > tuple set. Besides, they is a long way to go before reaching the
> > problem of concurrency..
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean. A possible representation is a
> member of a set that maps bijectively onto a domain and corresponds to an
> element of that domain.
The logical and physical representation internal representation of set members is *not* the user representation of what would allow to express a file.

> No matter how many possible representations there
> are for an element, any invocation of such an accessor function necessarily
> involves the element.
So? Representing a tuple *internally* does not put as much emphasis on the seperate element as it puts emphasis on representing a relation.

> > Regards...

[Future users of large data banks must be protected from having to know how the data is organized in the machine (the internal representation)] (Codd) Received on Sat Jun 09 2007 - 10:06:15 CEST