Re: The Database that Understands What It's Told

You know there are suprisingly few clear web resources to illustrate just why a navigational/graph model is flawed. Perhaps it is the length of time since that debate was won, but given Codd's lifetime of hard work, the seemingly natural but mistaken urge to use graphs, and the importance of correct logical informational handling in today's environment, this seems very stark in its absence.

I realise debunk does a lot, but I feel something less conversational and more instructional is required, to illustrate in a few pages what most on cdt have realised over the years. Does anyone know of any other resources for such a page?

Bob Badour wrote:
> paul c wrote:
>
> > Marshall wrote:
> >
> >> erk wrote:
> >>
> >>> XML is enterprisey!
> >>
> >> "Mom! I have to wash up now. That XML I was playing with
> >> turned out to be enterprisey, and it got all over my clothes!
> >> Can you get me a clean shirt?"
> >>
> >> Marshall
> >>
> > Now, be polite. The article at
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_Framework
> >
> > says that RDF is a data model and what's more, facilitates first order
> > logic. Seems negation is something called a metalevel relation and RDF
> > is a "metalanguage that can be used to define modal and higher-order
> > logic". The so-called model's operators aren't specified but they
> > appear to be read, write and parse which I suppose to be charitable are
> > skills needed to use FOL. Semantic Web looks like not invented here,
> > turtles all the way down and swimming submarines all over again.
> > Enterprises better get on the ball with this before somebody else does.
>
> I sent my user agent to look into RDF, but it blew its semantic stack.
> All I got back were some lyrics:
>
> Ain't nothing but a hound DAWG cryin' all the time.
>
> Colored lights can hypnotize SPARQL someone else's eyes.
>
> I have no idea what that means, but I think Elvis has left the building.
Received on Tue Aug 01 2006 - 19:59:46 CEST