Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?
From: Jon Heggland <jon.heggland_at_idi.ntnu.no>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:26:50 +0200
Message-ID: <e2ig6a$7su$1_at_orkan.itea.ntnu.no>
>
> We can do both ;-) We ought not dismiss relations, nor modeling with
> relations, but we do need to go beyond the RM to include lists, for
> example, which the Information Principle (of the RM) does not permit.
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:26:50 +0200
Message-ID: <e2ig6a$7su$1_at_orkan.itea.ntnu.no>
dawn wrote:
> David Cressey wrote:
>> I agree with you about the large number of crap designs, which I call >> "stupid database tricks". But I think the solution is to teach better >> design skills, and develop better platforms, rather than to dismiss the >> RM.
>
> We can do both ;-) We ought not dismiss relations, nor modeling with
> relations, but we do need to go beyond the RM to include lists, for
> example, which the Information Principle (of the RM) does not permit.
I think (hope?) you mean "we do want to go beyond SQL to include lists, for example, which SQL does not permit".
-- JonReceived on Mon Apr 24 2006 - 14:26:50 CEST