Re: Pizza Example

In message <AVzcc.51348$7d1.21461_at_newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>, Eric Kaun <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> writes
>"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
>news:c4so4g$dle$1_at_news.netins.net...
>> Looking at the benefits and deficits of various models makes
>> sense, but if we are to anoint one as THE model (which our profession has
>> somewhat done with the relational model), we should be very careful we
>don't
>> go and apply the theory of relativity to very small objects (an
>analogy) --
>> we should use it where it is useful. From what I can see, the relational
>> model is not close enough to a generalized TOE (theory of everything) for
>> data that we should stop reviewing other options.
>
>Couldn't agree more - we should be. The value of O-O is still far from
>concluded. What's a little different about relational is that it's derived
>very directly from logic and set theory, and also is the implicit base in
>most other theories of data - you've said as much yourself regarding
>multivalues. However, the "extensions" can corrupt the base, which I believe
>is that case with most other theories, and furthermore they often add
>nothing.

The problem I see with relational, is that it does not cope with - indeed, denies the existence of - emergent complexity. For example, there is no way for the DBMS to know (or record the fact) whether a table represents a "noun" or a "repeating adjective". Seeing as nouns and adjectives are fundamentally different in language, I would have thought the inability of a DBMS to distinguish between the data equivalents would be a serious handicap...

Cheers,
Wol

-- 
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
as Lies-to-People.
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999