Re: Nulls, integrity, the closed world assumption and events

dawn wrote:
> Keith H Duggar wrote:
> > dawn wrote:
> > > Walt wrote:
> > > > Many have attempted, but you have been expounding on the same incorrect
> > > > ideas for something like five years now.
> > >
> > > Could you point me to proof that something I expound is incorrect?
> > > Perhaps just starting by telling me what I think to be true that you
> > > think false, or vice versa, would be helpful. I would very much
> > > appreciate knowing.
> >
> > RM != SQL
> > QED
> >
> > Keith -- Fraud 6
>
> Hi Keith - I do not equate RM with SQL. I do think, however, that we
> would not have SQL were it not for the RM.
> The RM could be seen as a primary "culprit" in giving us SQL.
> Additionally, most, if not all, implementations that are based on the
> relational model employ SQL as the means of interacting with the DBMS.
> Marketing and other materials for a couple of decades now use the
> acronym RDBMS when referring to SQL-DBMS's for good reason.
> [snip]

It is not that you confuse RM with SQL. It is that because RM doesn't do everything you want (and only an idiot would think that the RM is the last word in data management), you promote throwing the baby out with the bath water, and losing all of the invaluable insights that Codd brought. This is also why you generate such resentment Dawn. Saying RM != SQL is just shorthand for that I think. Received on Mon Jan 22 2007 - 02:03:40 CET