Re: Binary Relational Modeling call

On 2011-09-09, Ivan <ivanvodisek_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> all right, i suppose moderator of the group won't be too mad at us,
> that's all i was having in mind.

**digression**
This is a Usenet group.
  There is no moderator.
  There is no owner.
  It does not reside on any single host.   There is no reliable way to delete your own or anyone else's messages.   Messages may or may not be retained somewhere public essentially for   ever.
**end of digression**

> i'm honored to have something to share with anyone interested.
> i sincerely fill that BRM could aim at SQL's place in programming.

I would have thought that that was an apples/oranges comparison. Unless you are thinking about diagram-driven software, but that is an interesting concept not noted for its success except in very specific areas.

> yes, it can manage n-ary relationships.
>
> is it new technology? i found some resources on internet claiming that BRM
> exist since the year 1984. what is new is its graphing capabilities. to
> give you a sneak peek, very BRM can be also implemented in itself.

I found a 1982 paper which referred to a 1980 paper (it didn't take me long, or I wouldn't have bothered), as well as at least one quite recent paper (2009). I haven't read any more than the synopses, but they all seem to come from the large collection of people who do not properly understand the relational model.

I'm afraid that, on the evidence so far, I have to put you in that category too.

http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/1147347.htm

> i hope i at least interested you. if i'm not, i'd like to thank you for
> your time. that's the way to make a progress.

Just for the interest of others, I will point out that you have had a very similar conversation with someone on comp.databases , and that you have this stuff on more than one website. So if you have a purpose other than getting yourself noticed and generating website traffic, the sooner it becomes more apparent the better.

Eric

-- 
ms fnd in a lbry