Re: Hierarchical Model and its Relevance in the Relational Model

Jan

Again, just on that one point.

> On Friday, 30 January 2015 22:35:51 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
>
> As you know I agree with that to some extent, but not completely. So I wonder what arguments and observation you have to offer to support that position. And to avoid misunderstandings: I'm interpreting your position as that you think that the Nested Relational Model will lead to more effective DBMSs then the Flat Relational Model. Would that be fair?

There is no such thing as the Nested Relational Model. There is only one Relational Model.

No. My initial post, this thread, is about real hierarchies. Not about the various papers that propose to implement data in some nested form (a view that is partially hierarchical) without understanding that the Relational Model has Hierarchies. ignorant people are forever re-inventing the wheel. and forever coming up short and square.

> You also seem to imply that there is no theoretical research on the Nested Relational Model. I know form direct experience that this is false, and have no idea why you would think that.

I have read five papers. Two are very good. Three are very poor.

The two that are good, are ignorant of hierarchies, and they re-invent the wheel, in the front of the cart, and sideways.

The great problem with ALL the mathematical papers these days is that they are written is staggering ignorant of other sciences; with a narrow focus on their tiny area; in ignorance of the real world, where the thing that they are "researching" already exists, and can be readily observed.

> Yes, much research went into the Flat Relational Model

Barf bag.

> , but that was not just because they thought that was the best model. Even if you think the Nested Relational Model is better

Barf bag with holes in it.

> , it still has a subset the flat model, which is easier to study, and so it makes sense to get a good understanding of that first.

three separate answers.

1. I don;t use barf bags manufactured by others, I only use my own.
2. Why don't they research the Relational model, instead of inventing things that are in it, by some other, stupid, name. By virtue of the evidence, mathematicians in this space have very little understanding of the RM. But they think otherwise, and they prove themselves wrong, when they invent the thing that already exists in the RM. They have no shame, no professional pride.
3. Ok, fine. Just don't tell the world about it. Don't try to change the RM. Don't publish it outside the protected space that mathematicians need to do their research. Don't tell anyone that you invented it. And if you do, there will be consequences.

Just look at Norbert's Topology thread. Excellent research but we have had that in commercial systems for over twenty years. And that research was done is isolation from the real world (note his question "Is this relevant?"). SO when you carve off the all the stuff that we already have; that stuff that is claimed to be relational without evidence, you are left with one thing: three tables plus a bunch of SQL/<some-language> queries to paint Spaces from within an app. Really great stuff, but he should have known that from the beginning.

Tomorrow.

Cheers
Derek Received on Fri Jan 30 2015 - 14:23:45 CET