Re: A database theory resource - ideas

On Mar 17, 6:11 pm, "Tony D" <tonyisyour..._at_netscape.net> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2:24 am, "Bruce C. Baker" <bcbake..._at_cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Dawn, perhaps you could follow JOG's lead and set up your own MV theory
> > resourece?
>
> > I'm only half-kidding ...
>
> She has. I'll let Dawn promote it for herself. Suffice to say some of
> the comments on her site put her contributions here in fairly sharp
> relief.

I hope you were at least entertained by it, Tony. I'm trying to give both some of the logic, the language, and the flavor of the "opposing view" to the legacy RM. It should at least be a little bit enlightening to a relational theorist, even if just to try to figure out how botched up my thinking might be ;-) as well as the thinking of many who are in general agreement with me.

Perhaps thinking about data models might divide as much on personality types as on actual solid theory (including application thereof) or solid data at this point in time. Hopefully we can get some better empirical data in the future on use of 2VL compared to 3VL or NF2 compared to 1NF (the form formerly known as 1NF), or support for lists, for example. cheers! --dawn Received on Sun Mar 18 2007 - 04:17:14 CET