Re: Something new for the New Year (2008).
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:28:14 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 15, 1:54 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 9:06 am, Rob <rmpsf..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > Although Marshall says: "I *still* don't know what you find
> > interesting about it", I would argue that in addition to being the
> > first, new relationship representation in 35 years (nested sets
> > notwithstanding), it also demonstrates considerable analytic utility.
> I don't think you're taking point-of-view into consideration
> very well.
> Let me ask you: looking out my window, I see a lot of
> fog. I claim it is the kind of fog that is just going to burn
> off, and not the kind that will turn into rain. Do you agree?
> See the problem?
I see one problem. Your "analogy" is between a non-reproducible, observable weather state that exists outside your window, and a technology that can be reproduced on any SQL DBMS.
> I cannot disprove your "considerable analytic utility" claim.
> Neither can I confirm it.
> Maybe I could take a picture of the fog and send it to you.
> Maybe you could show some of this analytic utility in action.
> Then we might be on more solid footing with regards to
> each others claims.
According to Geoffrey A. Moore in Crossing the Chasm, the people who will actually adopt a new technology (he uses the term to mean a product) can be divided into Innovators, Early Adopters, The Early Majority, The Late Majority and the Laggards. (The "chasm" of the book title is between the Early Adopters and the Early Majority.) I would not presume to categorize you Marshall, but you are certainly not among the first two groups. I could spend time working up example applications and spoonfeed them to you, but in the end, you'll say "I could do that in SQL without your invention" or "I could write a program to do that". And you would miss the point entirely: That the AL representation doesn't solve any problem you could not already solve, it just makes it easier.
Here's a simple problem you can work out yourself: Suppose I have two
relationships between a pair of relations, R and S. One relationship
is represented using the PKFK data structure, the other using the JT
data structure. Are they identical?
You can copy the PKFK relationship using the technique described here:
The webpage (shameless plug)
is full of detail about structure independence, richness/precision of relationship representation and even performance. I'm sorry you cannot find anything interesting there. I believe a better use of my energies would be to prepare material for use by (Moore's) Innovators and Early Adopters.
No offense is intended here. My resources a very limited. I have to
spend them where I can hope for the best return.
RobReceived on Thu Jan 17 2008 - 19:28:14 CET