Re: Relational vs network vs hierarchic databases

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message news:cnlebu$736$1_at_news.netins.net...

> I agree -- that was not what I intended as the point.
> It was in this instance -- where a person is thinking of an organizational
> hierarchy -- where I indicated that I don't care how the computer is
> handling the implementation of the org chart -- the person doesn't HAVE TO
> think like the computer. In theory, the person could specify a hierarchy
as
> a hierarchy and use it as a hierarchy, but the underlying structures could
> be relations. Today we do that for the end-user, but not for the
developer.
>
> Did that make sense? --dawn

Yes, but....

Earlier you referred to the "IT professional" as "data modeler", and now you're referring to the "developer".

It's not the same body of expertise, and not the same requirement for thinking in models.

As far as programmers is concerned, I wouldn't mind if they had a layer of interface that made the relations look like hierarchies, when needed. But access to hierarchies coded as either adjacency lists or nested sets isn't all that tough, even for a programmer. Hell, I wouldn't mind a layer of interface that made pick files look like tables.

BTW, I assume your org chart comments don't contemplate something like "matrix management". Received on Fri Nov 19 2004 - 23:31:54 CET