Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements

JOG wrote:

> dawn wrote:
> 

> 
> Relational operators only demand exclusivity at the bottom level.
> Anything you want you can layer on top. From your posts I figure that's
> good enough for you ;)

Jim, if you are going to engage the ignorant cranks and trolls, please, do a better job of calling them on their bullshit.

The relational model includes types and the operations on values of those types, while only specifying one required type. Which types are included in any given design is nearly orthogonal to the RM with the exception that a boolean type is required. However, nobody has to layer anything on top of the RM to use lists in the RM. One only has to include a list type in the design.

I have yet to see any proposal for a useful list type or operations on values of a list type that were not already better handled using relations.

Your recent replies to the cranks and trolls have been incoherent. If you are not going to put in the effort to respond coherently to the cranks and trolls, you would do us all a favour by simply citing Date's _Principle of Incoherence_ and moving on.

>>>but can hardly be processed as a data model.
>>>I'm guessing that your reference to www was tongue in cheek.
>>
>>It was a counter-example. Your words were "information handling" so it
>>worked.

> 
> But you knew what I meant dawn, and were just being polemic. Paper
> holds information, but its not gonna be too hot for data modelling.

Paper works in many applications and worked just fine for a couple millenia prior to the advent of computers. I am having trouble discerning a point to your stroking the egos of the self-aggrandizing ignorants. It seems you are just wasting everyone's time.

>>[snippage]

> Nothing wrong with layers on top of RM and I agree group/ungroup normal > form is very interesting.

That depends on exactly what you mean by a layer. There is everything wrong with violating the information principle or layering physical pointers 'on top of' the RM.

>>Pick is practical in a big bang for the buck way.

Bullshit. We have plenty of empirical evidence that Pickies universally lack sufficient cognition to evaluate their own solutions. We have plenty of empirical evidence that Pick forces causual users to have expert level file processing skills in order to effectively use the product. We have plenty of empirical evidence...

>>Relational theory is elegant in a mathematical way.

It is elegant in every way, and it is hugely practical at the same time.

   I don't want to
>>cheat on either theory or practice, but if they aren't going to align,
>>I'm stickin' with practical and flexible.

Which Dawn has proved beyond any doubt that she could not recognize if it bit her on the ass. If you are going to pretend to engage her, please, do a better job of calling her on her bullshit. Received on Wed Aug 16 2006 - 15:52:42 CEST