Re: The relational model is a wrong theory

Dana petak, 11. listopada 2019. u 15:00:36 UTC+2, korisnik Roy Hann napisao je:
> vldm10 wrote:
>
> > Dana utorak, 8. listopada 2019. u 20:14:05 UTC+2, korisnik James K. Lowden napisao je:
> >> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 08:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
> >> vldm10 <vldm10_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > A man named John Smith had black hair in 2010. In 2019, his hair was
> >> > white. According to Codd's Relational model, these are two different
> >> > people.
> >>
> >> I would like to think you're being provocative just to breath some life
> >> into c.d.t. You don't truly believe what you wrote, right?
> >
> >>
> >> Codd refers to the phenomenon of
> >> "changing over time" in his 1970 paper.
> >
> > I can tell you that my grandmother said the same thing as you quoted E. Codd.
> > But she's certainly older than Codd, so the priority for that idea
> > belongs to her.
>
> You have just illustrated why a set of values has no intrinsic meaning.
> The intended meaning can be interpreted successfully only with respect
> to the agreed predicate that everyone shares. The RM takes this as
> given.
>
> I would like to think you did it deliberately, in which case, neatly
> done sir. Unfortunately it doesn't illustrate the claim you are making
> in the subject heading so it is probably an accident.
>
> Roy
>
> PS: I second James' gratitude to you for reviving c.d.t. Just try not to
> gnaw on too many imaginary bones.

[Quoted] [Quoted] [Quoted] Codd's database solution only stores the last attribute-level value. This is the simplest case of a database solution. In that sense, I mean Codd's RM is the wrong solution. Codd's database solution has the following data operations: delete data and update data. This means that Codd's databases do not have past. And that is very bad for business. In the same sense, the ER is wrong.

My solution has a complete history of the small world that we call „database“ . In my solution, no one can "tear down" any part of history, even if he wants to. My solution is at the atomic level, that is, at the level of attributes. That means I have atomic thoughts, atomic concepts, atomic objects, atomic predicates, and atomic propositions. From there, one can see the structure of propositions, predicates, objects, concepts and thoughts. Also one can build complex propositions, predicates, objects, concepts and thoughts from corresponding atomic ones.

Vladimir Odrljin Received on Tue Oct 15 2019 - 09:59:57 CEST