Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)

"Lee Fesperman" <firstsql_at_ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:40BBD212.70E9_at_ix.netcom.com...

> It appalls me how many are taken in by snake oil salesman (thanks for the
quote, Bob
> Badour) like Neo who claim to have a better solution than the relational
model.

I agree with you, as far as you've taken it. But I think it goes deeper than this.

I think that most of the snake oil salesmen show up with a product, rather than an alternate theory. I think this is very, very significant.

It's almost as though those who are looking for the silver bullet want something that can be described thus: "we don't know why it works, but we know that it does."

Now I'm one of those "practical people" that are viewed as barbarians by the high priests of this forum. But this time, I'm going to say a few words in favor of a model with a sound theoretical base. One of the purposes of a model is to make visible the consequences of a design decision without entailing the actual costs of implementing the design.

A model without a sound theoretical base is often capable of giving misleading information about a proposed design. This can lend support for a bad design, or draw support away from a good design. In other words, it can lead away from success.

A model with a sound theoretical base can also do this, but it's easier to understand the model itself, and to know its scope.

The most radical departure that Codd made in 1970 was to try to piece together a theory of data structure whose internal consistency could be proven. In other threads, I've been somewhat dismissive of "tautology". But if I have to pick between a tautological system and a self contradictory system, in the absence of very strong evidence either way, I'm going to go with the tautological system.

It's the only practical thing to do. Received on Tue Jun 01 2004 - 14:58:56 CEST