Re: Binary Relational Modeling call
From: Bob Badour <bob_at_badour.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:40:39 -0700
Message-ID: <auOdnXnkfbmkIPbTnZ2dnUVZ5uOdnZ2d_at_giganews.com>
>>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**
>>>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.
>>>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.
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:40:39 -0700
Message-ID: <auOdnXnkfbmkIPbTnZ2dnUVZ5uOdnZ2d_at_giganews.com>
Ivan wrote:
> 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 > >>>>exist since the year 1984. what is new is its graphing capabilities. to
>>>yes, it can manage n-ary relationships.
>>>
>>>is it new technology? i found some resources on internet claiming that BRM
>>>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.
For a conversation to happen, you would have to say something. Anything more substantive than: "Hey! Come on over to our new group! There'll be ponies and ice cream and ..." Received on Sat Sep 10 2011 - 21:40:39 CEST