Re: Very simple question to relational theorists.

On Monday, September 10, 2012 8:56:06 PM UTC-7, Evgeniy Grigoriev wrote:
> 1) My name is Evgeniy (russian Eugene). :)
Sorry, I do know that Evgeniy. Frequently play hockey with an Evgeniy, Russian accent included.

> 2) You write a big text,

Cutting and pasting was a fast way to explain more.

> but whem I see through it, I understand that you think that I use domain operations

I know what you are doing. I am just showing you two other proposals that encode information in relations inappropriately/non-relationally. In that sense they are similar to yours. (Observe that both also involve encoding into headings. Although that is coincidental.) Try to understand what they are doing, what I say their problems are and what I say should be done instead. I will send a message about yours in particular. If you want to learn stop focusing on why you are right and start focusing on how you might be wrong.

On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:53:18 AM UTC-7, Evgeniy Grigoriev wrote:
> >The OMG and O/R camps do not understand the relational model; SQL object extensions are partly not relational, partly messily relational.
> >Your proposals are essentially these.
> No.

See the Third-Generation Database System Manifesto for your O/R mapping and dotted name sequences in SQL style queries. Yes your using those sequences as attributes is unique.

> I really don't understand what you write about, Philip. Definitely It's not about my question.

The point is that your use of relations is non-relational in a similar way. Seek the similarities.

> Roy's answer is clear for me
> "Relational theory explicitly eschews physical concerns. Provided your physical machinations don't corrupt the logic you are free to do whatever you want."
> but I'm still not sure if my mashinations is not physical.

(An inadvertent pun. You mean "machinations". Look up "mash". I like it.)

When he writes about the "physical" he means "implementation" or "representation".

On Monday, September 10, 2012 12:53:36 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> But these are not relational. They are inadequately abstracted representations of formatted output types. You too are essentially using relations to represent a relation-plus-labels type that would likely best merely contain rather than be relations.

philip Received on Tue Sep 11 2012 - 10:47:04 CEST