Re: Modeling question...

From: Roy Hann <specially_at_processed.almost.meat>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:10:52 -0500
Message-ID: <>

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.

Cheer up! :-) It's worse than you think: clinical outcomes research (with which I was periperally involved for the first 10 years of my career) is *at least* as bad.

"On the word of no one." (Paradoxically, those are good words to live by. :-)

Received on Thu Oct 23 2008 - 16:10:52 CEST

Original text of this message