Re: Binary Relational Modeling call

Dana subota, 10. rujna 2011. 13:55:25 UTC+2, korisnik Eric napisao je:
> On 2011-09-09, Ivan <ivanv..._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**

we're supposed to be moderators of ourselves. don't you think our posts should be given to anyone interested? or you have to hide something? well, i have solution for these two problems: NO CROSSING, if you mind!

> > 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.

for now, i didn't see visual representation of BRM. as i thought, BRM existed before, but graphs are new. and if i'm allowed to have my opinion that's a very cool news. just to invite you to our little group, let me tease you a little bit: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1sa2AyprqIFvy2de3BoKse-4vfh2_sJq6DiRe4ZiXgu8/edit?hl=hr

what happens when things get ruff? let's see definition of the BRM in SQL visualization compared to the BRM in very itself: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1_jY_wLwqzuGMuff1-nOK8fgqcTY4GUQ2iENKfYEVC4k/edit?hl=hr

> > 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

as for those conversations, why didn't they take a place, that's up to you, folks. if anyone interested, "the code project site" (8 000 000 programmer members) actually this morning published an article i wrote on this subject: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/database/brm001.aspx

if you can promise me that you really took this concept under consideration, and if you find it offensive for programmers community, i'll be glad to wipe up the group i'm trying to give a breath in. for xrist's sake, this is not about money and this is not a visit count pursuit. i actually think that we have something new we could use in database programming. and a friend doesn't deserve such humiliation i'm going through.

but again, maybe i'm living in imaginary clouds. so explain me it's so. Received on Sat Sep 10 2011 - 17:30:32 CEST