Re: foundations of relational theory?
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 05:04:38 -0500
Message-ID: <3566592.1068113078_at_dbforums.com>
>
> I assume (and I can stand corrected) that this is set theory,
> and while
> relational theory springs from it, it's a stretch to imply that
> relational db theory was somehow even postulated in 1874 or
> before. But
> as I say, the theory may be provenaced there.
>
Where did I imply it?
>
> I might start from perfection with the most
> perfect paints and brushes when I paint my living room, but if I'm a
> poor painter (practitioner) it wouldn't matter at all. On the other
> hand, a master craftsman can work with his 10year old battered brush
> and leftover paint and do better.
>
But a poor painter has a better chance with the right tools than without them. And frankly there seems to be so many "poor painters" in this field that they need all the help they can get.
>
> And set/relational theory decomposes data into its fundamental
> particles
> - like Physics decomposes matter into quarks and leptons. But there is
> also the "theory of emergent complexity", which says that you just
> CANNOT explain things like atoms, chemistry, and biology (heck, even
> classical physics!) in terms of fundamental particles.
>
Are you trying to say that set/relational theory can lead to chaos?
>
> This model has the advantages of Forced Data Integrity, the
> end user does not have to know our data model. Essentially it creates
> customized mini-sql engines for our data objects. As I study this
> model more and play with it with Microsoft .net, Disconnected
> datasets, and XML data sets, I really feel this is the future.
>
This quote gave me a good chuckle, because I am currently on a project that does this. Nearly the entire enterprise's schemas are replicated outside the DBMS's into these XML schema (XSD) for validation before it hits the data tier.
"Welcome to the dumb future"
-- Posted via http://dbforums.comReceived on Thu Nov 06 2003 - 11:04:38 CET