Re: Something new for the New Year (2008).
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:18:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <7cb41be0-69bc-47d1-8e8a-d4c0526095ea_at_s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
On 3 jan, 19:52, Rob <rmpsf..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 8:19 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:> On Jan 1, 2:45 pm, Rob <rmpsf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If you have a chance, please take a look on my website at this page:
>
> > >http://www.sfdbs.com/toplevel/fasttrack/fasttrack.shtml
Why do the patent links point to a patent for a "Electrochemical energy storage device having improved enclosure arrangement" ?
> For now, just think of it as a new, interesting technology. I've
> worked with it since 1997: I could provide a long list here of its
> advantages, and I will add material to the website as fast as I can.
> cdt is a powerful group. It was (is) my intent to present the basic
> technology here and see where cdt people may choose to take it.
I'd prepare myself for a tidal wave of negativity, if I were you.
> For 35+ years, the conversation about relational database technology
> seems to have been exclusively about "things" or "entities" or
> "objects": Relationships and relationship representation are virtually
> invisible. (For example, casting Junction Tables as "association
> entities".) Is there a dual, relationship-oriented approach?
The relational model *is* the relationship-oriented approach. The object-oriented models constitute the object-oriented approach, and in that sense its dual. And somewhat ironically your proposal has a definite object-oriented smell about it. You even make similar claims about how the WHERE clause becomes more simple.
> Some (like JOG) interpret the data structures (relations) of a
> relational database as sets of "true" logical statements. I personally
> don't see how that benefits the database designer/user, but if they
> prefer that approach, they certainly should use it.
It's a rather widely accepted interpretation in both industry and research. You have an alternative?
> However, I do not
> see an obvious "dual" in this interpretation that corresponds to the
> "structure" dual in the data + structure formulation.
Who needs a dual? Sounds in this case more like a bug than a feature to me.
- Jan Hidders