Re: Something new for the New Year (2008).

On Jan 3, 6:52 pm, Rob <rmpsf..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 8:19 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:> On Jan 1, 2:45 pm, Rob <rmpsf..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Some (like JOG) interpret the data structures (relations) of a
> relational database as sets of "true" logical statements.

I'm sorry Rob, but that's not an interpretation. Thats /what it is/. The relations of a relational database encode true facts about the world. I'm sure you've read Codd's paper so it worries me that you've missed this database fundamental.

> I personally
> don't see how that benefits the database designer/user, but if they
> prefer that approach, they certainly should use it. However, I do not
> see an obvious "dual" in this interpretation that corresponds to the
> "structure" dual in the data + structure formulation.

I'm sure all that you have written is well-intended but all I see is buzzwords and hocus-pocus. If you can't respond to Marhsall's questions directly in a paragraph or so, well it sets alarm bells off somewhat. I am honestly not saying any of this to be nasty, its just that if your web page "fasttrack" looks like gobbledegook to me, well it sure will to a lot of other people too.

Perhaps you will be able to take something useful from my comments, but I worry that you are so committed to this now that any reassessment would be extremely difficult.

>
> Rob
>
Received on Fri Jan 04 2008 - 01:42:35 CET