Re: Objects and Relations

On Feb 26, 10:33 pm, "Alfredo Novoa" <alfred..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 feb, 13:55, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > Completely wrong. Your view is profoundly ignorant. Please learn what
> > > the Relational Model really is before writing.
>
> > RM is not complicated.
>
> So you don't have excuse for not knowing what is.
>
> > Perhaps you could find me an example in the literature where RM+RA has
> > been found suitable and effective for representing and processing
> > strings or images - at least at the logical level.
>
> There are plenty of them.
>
> http://www.terraserver.microsoft.com/About.aspx?n=AboutWhatIs

LOL. Using RM to index image tiles doesn't count. I was assuming an RM representation of an image goes down to individual pixels.

I note as well that with indexed tiles, RM+RA would (on its own) be utterly incapable of doing the most trivial of operations, instead depending on a rich ADT for the tiles to do the actual image processing - such as resampling.

> > Could you list
> > some of the advantages?
>
> The list is on any introductory textbook.
>
> I recomend this:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Database-Systems-Eighth/dp/0321197844http://www.amazon.com/Database-Depth-Relational-Theory-Practitioners/...
>
> > Are the images or strings merely treated as
> > RVAs?
>
> What a nonsense.

You merely admit you don't understand me.

I have no interest in exchanging insults further.

Bye. Received on Mon Feb 26 2007 - 15:02:41 CET