Re: General semantics

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 11:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <014786b3-a039-402d-b55e-4d552d8d99e4_at_y12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>



On 21 mai, 17:58, Clifford Heath <n..._at_spam.please.net> wrote:
> 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.

OK. Let me get this straight: ORM would be a pedagogical tool for understanding better RM. How about this: what about reading RM theory to understand better RM. The joke is that the last ORM proponent of the planet will someday find out that a perfect ORM is simply RM.

> > 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.
This is hopeless. Received on Fri May 21 2010 - 13:40:24 CDT

Original text of this message