Re: General semantics

From: Clifford Heath <no_at_spam.please.net>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 01:58:49 +1000
Message-ID: <4bf6adba$0$32112$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>



paul c wrote:
> Nilone wrote:

>> As such, I see no real argument between
>> the models; in fact, the little I know of ORM (mostly from looking at
>> Halpin's page a while back) seemed to match up with the relational
>> model well.

Indeed. It has the potential to help people understand the relational model better, and to implement it more purely than has yet been done.

> Tell us why we need more 'correspondences'.

Because it does contain additional insight, for those who are open to it. Few here though, it seems. They refer to parade their partial knowledge instead.

But if you're not in that class, I dare you to at least take a glance at some of the example models in ORM2 and CQL on this page and honestly tell me you think there's nothing interesting happening there:
<http://dataconstellation.com/ActiveFacts/examples/> This stuff is pure relational, but at a level that anyone can understand... and that makes a difference. Received on Fri May 21 2010 - 10:58:49 CDT

Original text of this message