Re: Object equals Relation

The world rejoiced as JXSternChangeX2R_at_gte.net (JRStern) wrote:
> On 12 Jun 2002 13:33:19 -0700, jraustin1_at_hotmail.com (James) wrote:
>>> > What does an OODB-model lack
>>> > that prevents it from being as expressive as a RDB-model?
>>>
>>> Relations.
>>
>>I think I now understand, and agree, the fundamental basis of
>>databases is the 'fundamental concept' described by a relation.
>>According to relational terminology: a relation is a set of related
>>things.
>
> I don't know if "relation" is supposed to mean the semantic function
> that groups fields, or a particular set of values that fulfills the
> function. That is, I forget if it's supposed to mean a table or a
> row.
>
> But the term "object" is used loosely to mean class or instance, so
> "object" doesn't map exactly to anything.

The whole "loosely" thing is a Very Serious Problem.

There is a very serious lack of rigor to the "theory of objects."

The sheer number of variations in what relationships there may be between classes, instances, objects, slots, and methods demonstrate that it's _not_ clearly grounded in theory.

Throwing OO up against things involving formal rigor will have some problems...

-- 
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc_at_" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/lisp.html
If only women came with pull-down menus and online help.