Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)

> > Among other things, the difference in normalization between the
> > implementations (still looking it over) is quite different.
>
> I don't demand that XDb1 should use a relational structure,
> you should not demand that a RM solution uses XDb1's structure.

And I don't demand that a RM solution use XDb1's structure, only that it provide a solution that normalizes the data to a similar extent. For example, if the user names the first person 'john' and the dog also 'john', your current solution won't work.

In XDb1, the solution will still continue to work, although it should also print each thing's class (ie "person/john" and "dog/john") so that user can distinguish them on the report. In XDb1, if the user names the first person 'john', the second person 'mary' and the dog 'mary john', there would still be only one occurance of the word 'john' and one of the word 'mary' in the db ('mary john' would be composed from references to 'mary' and 'john'). Received on Thu May 20 2004 - 20:25:21 CEST