Re: Modeling question...
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <bf552845-8415-49ed-9e7a-0d26a9f7d5c3_at_d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 23, 10:01 pm, Roy Hann <specia..._at_processed.almost.meat> wrote:
> JOG wrote:
>
> > 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.
Hello Roy,
I've just argued against this claim of a universal applicability of the RM. I was hoping you or Jim would reply.
I haven't forgotten your one and only comment from 12 months ago when I discussed the inappropriateness of the RM to represent ASTs :
"Education triumphs over learning once again"
Do you have anything more to say than that? Received on Mon Oct 27 2008 - 03:21:27 CET