Re: Modeling question...

From: paul c <>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:25:51 GMT
Message-ID: <zX_Lk.3655$fF3.1204_at_edtnps83>

JOG wrote:

> 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."

The act of deciding/agreeing upon relations exposes enough structure for the RM to be applied. It's the sine qua non. Dr. Strangelove might have said after reading a paper that suggests it unnecessary "but that's the whole point!". Received on Thu Oct 23 2008 - 15:25:51 CEST

Original text of this message