Re: Hierarchical Model and its Relevance in the Relational Model

Op vrijdag 30 januari 2015 06:10:42 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> Clarification
>
> 4.
> The HM is a fundamental part of the RM. (To be clear, "fundamental" means "founded on".) Removing the HM from the RM would remove much of the integrity, power, and speed from the RM.

As you know I agree with that to some extent, but not completely. So I wonder what arguments and observation you have to offer to support that position. And to avoid misunderstandings: I'm interpreting your position as that you think that the Nested Relational Model will lead to more effective DBMSs then the Flat Relational Model. Would that be fair?

> Which mathematicians do, frequently.

If you mean who I think you mean then that is not a fair characterization. Yes, much research went into the Flat Relational Model, but that was not just because they thought that was the best model. Even if you think the Nested Relational Model is better, it still has a subset the flat model, which is easier to study, and so it makes sense to get a good understanding of that first.

You also seem to imply that there is no theoretical research on the Nested Relational Model. I know form direct experience that this is false, and have no idea why you would think that.

> And then invent tiny fragments of integrity, to patch up a few of the gaping holes, what they have lost.

I have not idea what you are referring to here.

> I love my profession.
>
> It is easy for me to help others, either furthering their knowledge or implementing something. It is easy for me to correct mistakes in my professional and to protect it from damage. That is the spirit and intent with which I started this thread. I am hoping that you love your profession, at least half as much as I do.

Yes, I do, and recognise this is in you. It is the reason why, even though I strongly dislike your debating style which I think is counterproductive, I still think the conversation might lead to something since your intentions seem to be sincere.

> I hope I do not have to explain why, how, in any profession, and to humanity itself, falsity is damaging. A lot of unnecessary argument can be eliminated if we stick to the truth. There is no such thing as private definitions or private truths, exist exist only for people who are severely isolated from society, people who do not have an authority. In the professions, we have authorities, standards, laws. If we observed them, there would be no conflict within each profession.

That's a bit too optimistic for me. :-) But, sure, commonly agreed definitions help and lack of them can make it hard to have meaningful discussions. But what can be fare more damaging is the unwillingness to listen to the other side, even if their definitions are not exactly yours.

> Which leaves us with conflict between professions, as we have here. This skirmish is about mathematicians published falsity about my profession, causing damage to it (as well as to themselves, refer my comments re Norbert's thread).

Which falsities would that be?

> This does not happen when I deal with the banking industry or the car manufacturing industry: both sides are well aware of the sciences involved. It only happens with mathematicians who declare themselves to be the theorists in my industry, the database implementation profession.

When you say database implementation, do you mean indeed database implementation or DBMS implementation? But on both matters the theoreticians I know are actually very modest in their prescriptions. So I'm wondering what you are referring to here.

> There is a gaping chasm between what the mathematicians do (published secretly amongst themselves, unknown to practitioners), ie. what they think practitioners should do, and what practitioners are actually doing.

Any examples?

> Therefore, I requested that any discussion that may be had, be limited to the scientific realm.

That's not so easy, since most issues at hand are actually engineering questions rather then scientific questions. But ok, I support the demand to be as scientific as possible, and not only because my profession demands it.

• Jan Hidders