Re: Storing data and code in a Db with LISP-like interface
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:31:19 +0300
Message-ID: <e2snan$d6h$1_at_emma.aioe.org>
"Neo" <neo55592_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146103513.187238.112320_at_y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > ... I thought: /this/ is much easier in prolog.
> >> If "likes (john, apple1)" implies "john likes apple1"
> >> why isn't "john isa person" written as "isa (john, person)"
> >> or is "person (john)" an alternate/equivalent method?
> >
> > Re-engineering your program forced me to do some interpretation.
>
> :) I think re-engineering is too strong a word here. It is like calling
> the local gas attendant a fuel transfer engineer. For example,
> representing the things is verbose but very systematic with dbd. With
> Prolog, representing the same things is more compact and there might be
> several ways. With RM, representing the same things can result in a
> wide variety of schemas by different "engineers".
In a formal system one can choose the independent, consistent axioms to
start with.
What counts is what can be derived from them and how efficient.
One RM rule say one must be able to exchange the base relations with some
derived one without breaking anything. :-)
One might try to find a normalization algorithm to prescribe some base
relations. :-)
It wasn't that hard. Isn't it ? :-)
Received on Fri Apr 28 2006 - 11:31:19 CEST