Re: Stored fields ordered left to right

"Adrian Kubala" <adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net> wrote in message news:slrnc01db2.k9f.adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net...
> Dawn M. Wolthuis <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> schrieb:
> > With this discussion, I've been focussed on one specific issue, where
the
> > database model I am using has been taken to task for not employing
> > relations. I have no problem stating that it does not 100% follow a
> > relational database model, however, this one point -- that it does not
> > employ relations is entirely false.
>
> That's like calling a black and white camera a "color camera" because
> black and white are colors.

Most certainly not. First of all, black and white are not typically considered colors by color professionals, I believe.

I will be the first to say that the Nelson-Pick model does not meet the criteria of the relational database model. But it is absolutely the case (if you accept my analysis that it is based on functions, I think you will agree) that it is a mathematically relational model, right? I'm trying to use terminology that would be agreeable to all and using mathmatical terms in order to ensure precision seems like the best place to go for definitions of mathematical terms.

However, I don't want to use emotive language. I do want to be true to Codd's interest in being precise. If using mathematical language that has been co-opted by various "sides" in some "debate" will trip people up, then I need to come up with new language that will not trip people's emotional buttons.

Given that, should I completely avoid the word "relation" when referring to the mathematics of data modeling? I have already decided to set the word "domain" aside since it is a completely abused term. Relations in mathematics are quite consistently defined (as are domains, but, ah well), so if people are willing to put on mathematics "hats" and accept mathematical definitions, I think I can be precise without redefining these terms.

But I am curious -- if I prove that a database model is based on mathematical relations, and from that perspective is a "relational model", when both you and I would agree (even though IBM's marketing material does not) that it is not based on THE relational database model as specified by Codd, so that databases that implement this model should not be called RDBMS's (for example) -- is that likely to cause relational theorists to bit-flip (and switch from logical thinking to emotional reactions) and disregard anything else that is said?

I'm trying to choose my terminology wisely, but if I call a five a five and it trips emotions, well then what's a girl ta do, eh? smiles. --dawn Received on Sun Jan 11 2004 - 04:45:55 CET