Re: Hierarchical Model and its Relevance in the Relational Model

Jan

> On Saturday, 31 January 2015 02:12:27 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:

Referring to the whole post identified above, plus parts of your first two posts.

You are getting into definitions, private definitions, and what yours and mine are. That is something that (thankfully) you agreed not to do.

That is all tangential.

You are posing questions instead of answering the issues on the table.

As stated from the outset, I wish to limit the scope of this thread. One reason for that, is to avoid the time-consuming address of tangential issues; private definitions; etc, which lead to arguments that never get resolved.

I want these issues resolved, with minimal argument.

I repeat, from my initial post, you made the statements, in your various papers, articles and posts. I am confronting those statements. When you stated "RM", if you meant something other than the RM which is clearly understood by 99% of the people in the industry, perhaps one of the many "rms" that the 1% may be aware of, then it is up to you to retract it, or modulate it or correct it in some way. It is up to the writer to make the distinction. As it stands, those statements are incorrect, and I am trying to deal with that, and to resolve that.

The papers concerned, including some written by you, are published in the public domain. They get used to justify the implementation of certain notions. Those notions are raised in those papers. Those notions are false (sure, they do have a mathematical proof; but that is not the whole theory in this industry; and it is definitely not science). That is one of the cancers that is damaging the industry, in particular, the understanding and application of the RM. I am hunting those cancer-causing agents down, and dealing with them. We can deal with it squarely, or you can get tangential and avoid it. In the latter case, you will damage your own credibility.

Likewise for your statements re the HM, hierarchies, and their relevance to the RM.

If you start going off on tangents, it means you are avoiding the resolution of the issues. Please do not do that. Notice, James is not doing that.

This thread has very little to do with definitions, and a lot to do with abusing established definitions, which allows claims to be made in the universe of that one percent, which gets used in the universe of the 99%. Deal with the abuse.

> A. ____the Hierarchical Model rests on a theoretical void____
>
> B. ____the HM is dead, it has no relevance wrt the Relational Model___
>
> F. ____The implication here, and in many other places, is that you know the Relational Model, and you know it well.____
>
> That is the scope, I hope I have identified it clearly.

And since then, that "nested relations" are excluded from "hierarchical", if only to preserve the stated scope (noting my comments that they are already catered for in the RM, and a "nested set r m" or a "bovine r m" is unacceptable if published in the public domain).

I will deal with the points which are not tangential, in your three post, shortly.

Cheers
Derek Received on Sat Jan 31 2015 - 06:01:10 CET