Re: Modeling question...

From: JOG <>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>

On Oct 23, 2:01 pm, Roy Hann <specia..._at_processed.almost.meat> wrote:
> JOG wrote:
> > Despite a growing literature, current definitions of "semi-structure"
> > are woefully inadequate.
> A million people can (and evidently will) talk bollocks, but it's still
> bollocks.
> > The standard denotation is of data that "does
> > not fit into the relational model".
> That definition is entirely bogus.  The relational model just applies
> set theory to first order predicate logic.  If you have "data" that
> doesn't fit into both of these then you better start hiring mystics to
> look after it for you.

Indeed. And yet hundreds of peer-reviewed papers have been published on the topic. I find this incredibly depressing.

> But of course what someone who says that really means is, "data that we
> can't be bothered to fit into the relational model because the
> programming tools we use to write the applications are so crap there
> is no point."
> --
> Roy
Received on Thu Oct 23 2008 - 15:05:00 CEST

Original text of this message