Re: The Fact of relational algebra (was Re: Clean Object Class Design -- What is it?)

"Daniel Poon" <spam_at_spam.com> wrote in message news:<1003221613.499171_at_kang.qonos>...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> news:8iZx7.2887$uS1.94257252_at_radon.golden.net...
> > "Daniel Poon" <spam_at_spam.com> wrote in message
> > > Socrates is also a member of the Universal set, and a lot of other sets.
> The
> > > fact that he belong to these sets is independant of his existance.
> >
> > Agreed. The relational model allows this. Again, do you have a point?
>
> And how would you implement the Universal set in an rdbms ;-)

I would not. The rdbms simply allows socrates to exist in the universal set and for his identity to exist independent of his existence.

> The point is not that you can express one in another. The point is that the
> fundamental data representations are different.

Fundamentally, the ODBMS folks confuse logical representation with physical representation. Is this what you mean?

> Heck, in my oodbms I could create a class called Tuple, a class called row,
> and a class called SQLquerry, and build an rdbms in my oodbms. But thats not
> the point either.

Ultimately, every rdbms is implemented in some programming language. I am having difficulting identifying any point to your posts. Received on Thu Oct 18 2001 - 08:15:30 CEST