Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:53:58 +0200
Message-ID: <3f83d069.0_at_news.ruca.ua.ac.be>
Lee Fesperman wrote:
> Jan Hidders wrote:
>> >>Correct. There's absolutely no reason to believe that you cannot have >>data independence with logical pointer or references. I would however >>argue that allowing entities without representable keys is not a good idea.
>
> Incorrect. Even though you call them 'logical' pointers, they are
> still physical artifacts and have no place in a truly logical view of
> the database.
Logical pointers can be defined at the logical level and implemented in various ways. They are just as much physical artifacts as, say, relations are.
> Databases are about
> data, and pointers are not data (or meta-data).
They carry information. That makes them data. I see no good reason to use a more restrictive definition.
> The OP needs to increase his knowledge of database concepts before he
> tries to 'fix' things.
His motivation may be wrong, but he asks the right questions.
> A newsgroup is the wrong place to get any real
> depth of understanding.
I fully agree. If only because there seem to be so many in these newsgroups that confuse "knowledge of database concepts" with "knowing what Chris Date et al. say about them". If you want to know what the real experts in industry and the research community think, these newsgroups are certainly not representative.
- Jan Hidders