Re: Question on Structuring Product Attributes

On Tuesday, 12 February 2013 18:11:14 UTC+11, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:48:54 -0800 (PST) Derek Asirvadem wrote:
>
> > > > > AFAIK the word "relational" doesn't appear in the SQL
> > > > > standard unless to explicitly deny fealty to it.
> > > >
> > > > So what ? It is a standard.
> > >
> > > Yes, it's a standard defined explicitly in terms of itself, not in
> > > terms of RM. Your claim that, "SQL is [the] data sublanguage
> > > defined in the RM" is thus denied.
> >
> > ??? The RM defined a Data Sublanguage, nothing else did; the first
> > SQL was the rendition of the Data Sublanguage defined in the RM; the
> > SQL Standard is the progressed definition of a portion of the Data
> > Sublanguage defined in the RM; any SQL implementation is the
> > progressed rendition of the Data Sublanguage defined in the RM.
>
> Words fail me, clearly.

I accept that words fail you, but clearly ?

Look, you are an academic, an abstractionist. I am an engineer, non-abstract. We have a chasm between us, no the Grand Canyon. That words fail you or why words fail you, is clear as mud. You've been arguing for days, and I still have no idea what your intent is, what you are trying to prove. Every time I answer your questions, and provide info, you drop the previous argument (without the courtesy of conceding anything) and pick up some fragment from the margins of the new info, and argue some new issue.

Let's try to close at least one point, shall we, before embarking on the next new point. Since you are fragmenting things, and acting as per above para, nothing gets closed, the scope of the argument is wide open, and keeps getting wider. Even the filthy disgusting lawyers (scribes) are required to (a) declare the charge, and (b) declare "Agreed Facts", so that the case can be narrowed down to disputed facts, otherwise cases will take decades to close, not years.

So let me interject precisely, so that what is agreed or not is clear, so that the question of dispute can be corralled from the forest.

> To me, the fact that the SQL standard defines
> the language without reference to the relational model

Agreed so far.

> ipso facto means
> it's not "defined in the RM".

Either you are stupid, or you are not stupid and you are twisting my words, which is an offence. Are you trying to understand what I mean (read the words I have posted), or are you arguing some thus far unknown point by making the above statement ?

Rubbish. Are you unable to imagine a circumstance where the son writes himself an autobiography, that does not mention his father ??? Especially if the autobiography (being an independent standard) is required to be independent ??? You need an honest biography (note the "auto" has been removed), if you expect lineage to be identified.

Did use miss my Synopsis ??? My Short Synopsis ???

Are you so removed from reality, that you are unable to contemplate the ordinary and everyday occurrence that a father can define and imagine and create the child that has not yet been born ??? And somewhat after the child is born, the father can accurately state, this child is mine, I made him ??? That it does not matter one iota if the child acknowledges that ??? In an autobiography that is not required to mention his father ???

> Your argument,

Excuse me. I have no argument with you. I don't know you from a bar of soap, and I have nothing to prove to you. I was sitting here enjoying my serenity, after having answered a practical non-abstract question that Lennart asked; you came along, hijacked the thread, incised a single fragment, and mounted an argument with me. And you did so repeatedly, after I answered each of your fragmented questions. Evidently you are trying to prove something, which remains undeclared.

> to the contrary,

No, I am not arguing to the contrary. I said something else, which you keep ignoring, and you separately propose what I am arguing. Disgusting, really.

> seems to
> be:
>
> 1. The relational model defined a data sublanguage

Yes.

> 2. SQL was an implementation ("rendition") of that sublanguage

Yes.

> 3. Ergo, SQL is defined by the RM

I did not state that. You propose that I did. In spite of the fair amount of detail that I provided ergo-ing otherwise. Twice.

Anyone saying that [3] would be very stupid, yes. Anyone reading everything that I wrote and interpreting that body as [3] is very stupid. Anyone reading everything that I wrote and proposing that *I* stated that or argue that is is a disgusting liar.

Let me state it differently, one last time, and if you behave dishonestly, again, I will stop responding to you. Do not break the following up, and do not interpret and re-interpret my statements.

1. The relational model defined a data sublanguage 1.a. Any data sublanguage that came after the data sublanguage defined in the RM, whether it references the RM or not, and which fulfils basic elements of the RM [1], is [ipso facto] *an* implementation (rendition) of the RM.
2. IBM System/R was a fully credited implementation (rendition) of the data sublanguage defined in the RM [1], working closely with the author of [1]
3. IBM/SQL was an fully credited implementation (rendition) of the data sublanguage defined in the RM, [1] working with the author of [1], and derived directly from [2]
4. The SQL standard was an un-credited implementation (rendition) of the data sublanguage defined in the RM [1], and derived directly from [3], and the documentation for [3]
5. Any implementation that purports to be an implementation of the SQL Standard [4] is an implementation (rendition) of the data sublanguage defined in the RM [1], and derived directly from [4], which is derived directly from [3], which is derived directly from [2], which is derived directly from [1],
6. Therefore it cannot be disputed the any SQL implementation or the SQL Standard is defined *IN* the RM, in the manner that the RM defines it.
7. An idiot who cannot keep track of chronological events and lineage, or a disingenuous liar who isolates one fragment of truth and waves it around, whilst committing a fraud, will propose that since the SQL Definition does not lie in the RM, therefore SQL is not defined in the RM. Time to take that creature out the back, and put a bullet through its head, in order to avoid contaminating the community with that insanity.

> Exactly how does #3 follow from #2?

It doesn't. No one said it does. You proposed the insanity, and then you proposed that the insanity is an insanity. You are masturbating, thinking that it is sex, and complaining that is it horrible.

If you genuinely want to know how "something like [3] that you do not currently understand" follows from [2] which you appear to understand, read the above points [1] through [7], twice a day, for a month.. You won't have any questions.

> Put another way: How poor does an implementation
> have to be -- and how much must it disavow RM -- before it can no
> longer be claimed to be defined by it?

Hallelujah! Finally, some sense.

Good question. Leading somewhere else, so I don't see how it is the previous issue "put another way". I will have to think about it.

"Disavow" does not matter. The child can disavow the father or the grandfather until doomsday, that disavowal does not change the fact of his heritage.

The question begs: Implementation of what ?

If I take "how much must it disavow RM" to mean "how much must it not-ontain RM", then it is a good question. I will probably reverse the wording, to remove the double negatives, etc.

> At the risk of angering the copyright gods ...

God help me. I will answer the rest tomorrow, if I can bring myself to work through your fragmented thought processes and incorrectly attributed propositions.

Cheers
Derek Received on Tue Feb 12 2013 - 15:47:53 CET