Re: More on view updates and inverse views

From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <64aac113-2095-4a71-831e-e018e9dc8063_at_g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>



On Sep 10, 4:31 pm, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
>

> My attitude is that if it can't be expressed in an algebra it shouldn't
> be implemented.

I am quite sympathetic to the impulse but I think that's too strict. If we'd been following that stricture up to now, we wouldn't have been able to use any relational systems at all! Up until Vadim's, no relational "algebra" has actually been an algebra, strictly speaking.

And there are other ways to approach semantics besides algebraic. There exists axiomatic semantics, operational, denotational, etc. In fact, algebraic semantics, my personal favorite, does not seem to be very widely used.

Marshall Received on Fri Sep 11 2009 - 23:23:46 CDT

Original text of this message