Re: MV counterexample

• Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"x" <x-false_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4099fc71_at_post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

> "Karel Miklav" <karel_at_inetis.spppambait.com> wrote in message
> news:c7cmao02o3q_at_enews4.newsguy.com...
> > my point was, there is no inherent structure in data. We treat
> > characters in a string and numbers in an array like they are somehow
> > connected by invisible ties which preserve their order/structure, but
> > they're not, they're only conencted in our haeds. There are reasons to
> > optimize, but the structure is not one of them, rather a way.
>
> So you say that each "atomic" piece of data is (should be) self contained
?
> Is this possible ? Wouldn't we end up with one big chunk of data ?
> Or do you argue that all integrity constraints should belong to user space
> (in the user schema or in the user application) ?

Or something like this:
Data is only data. Meaning of data is not data. Computers are very good at storing data. Humans are better than computers at interpreting data. So all we need is to let humans and computers do what they are good at.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

• Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=