Re: Modeling question...

From: paul c <>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:23:26 GMT
Message-ID: <2y1Mk.3800$fF3.736_at_edtnps83>

David BL wrote:
> I also find it rather telling that relational queries (ie RA
> expressions) are not themselves represented using relations.

Just because some syntax doesn't look like a relation doesn't mean that the result isn't defined by relations. Eg., the D&D relational operators are all defined in terms of relations, then a bunch of shorthands are given, so as to minimize tedium and clerical errors. SQL doesn't do this which may be why so many people who think it is obedient to the RM have such weird ideas, such as thinking a relation can be updated.

> if that were useful, many cdt folks would jump at the opportunity to
> further promote the use of relations.

A relation is a mathematical construction. How well implementations mimic it is very much in the mental "eye" of the beholder, in a way implementation is a misleading word for what is really just an mechanical aid for symbolic manipulation and storage of results. Received on Thu Oct 23 2008 - 18:23:26 CEST

Original text of this message