Re: The MySQL/PHP pair

"Dan" <guntermann_at_verizon.com> wrote in message news:E5lid.215$2c5.82_at_trnddc01...

> > But the fundamental question of whether mathematical relations hinge on
> > 1NF
> > a la Codd has been dealt with, as far as I can see.
>
> I'm glad there is closure in your mind. Unfortunately, I think this is a
> fundamental issue and I don't quite see it your way. Sorry, Laconic2. I
> should know better than argue with a guy who graduated from MIT (IIRC).
> Perhaps it is just a matter of interpretation. :-)

Either you don't recall correctly, or I misspoke.

There are things that are matters of interpretation, and matters of opinion.

There is NOT clusure in my mind about what the definition of 1NF should have been in the 1970s. There is only closure in my mind about what the definition WAS.

> I think the difference in opinions is this. I made an effort to use
nested
> relations, nested sets, complex objects, etc. in terms of a theoretical
> model and in terms of what is available as part of SQL99 implementations
> now. I tried to formulate the questions, use complex values as keys,
create
> and implement methods, enforce constraints, share common "encapsulated"
> data, etc. I've gone through the motions of trying to understand how
> predicate calculus, and by extension, relational calculus would manipulate
> such sub-elements.

The question of whether nested relations, nested sets, complex objects etc. are theoretically sound and/or pragmatcially useful is a separable question from the question of whether RDM theory of the 1970s specifically included them.

I'm actually more interested in the subjects you raise that I am in debating the history of ideas about RDM in the 1970s.

I just find that, when the discussion hinges on what is sound and/or useful, and there is disgreement about what the terms mean, or what hey used ot mean, the discussion goes nowhere.

> It was counterproductive in that it was overly complex and severely
lacking
> in expressiveness. Integrity couldn't be enforced to the same degree as
a
> "flat" relational model (i.e. RI from sub-elements to 1st order elements
> couldn't be declared or enforced). Optimisation was constrained and even
> sub-optimal. Logical queries did not always produce consistent results.
> The list goes on and on. When I stated in earlier conversations that we
> hadn't even scratched the surface in terms of issues, I was speaking from
> experience.

My experience is also more valuable to me than theory, as such. Where theory is valuable is that it can render certain issues that seem subjective at first to the point where they are objectively decidable. That allows us to home in on those areas that are either truly subjective, or remain to be objectified.

> For those of you who have actually gone through similar paces, I'd like to
> hear your stories. Perhaps they yielded more success. But, I'd rather
not
> hear about intuitive guesses about what might work because the feeling is
> that it might be more productive and because *one* of Codd's paper didn't
> have the explicit presecription, "thou shall not use complex attribute
> values," especially from people that haven't at least tried to either
> design, or at least use, such a system. This is not a set of statements
> directed at you by the way Laconic2; rather, just musing out loud.

I'm often just musing out loud myself. No problem with that. Received on Thu Nov 04 2004 - 15:13:21 CET