Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements

Marshall wrote:
> Neo wrote:
> > > The most general method of representing things is to use bits.
> > > All that remains is the matter of filling in the details.
> >
> > If this is true, why don't data models (ie hierarchal, relational, etc)
> > mention bits?
>
> Because they've filled in the details.
>
>
> > > Some of the first details that should be filled in would be a
> > > specification of what exactly "generality" means with regards
> > > to "representing" "things." Until there *is* such a specification,
> > > I assert that the particular task you are trying to solve is unspecified.
> >
> > Would you consider the relational method of representing things to be
> > more general than the hierarchal method? If so, why?
>
> Yes, I would. Hierarchies only allow one to use a single organizational
> scheme; relations allow as many as are necessary. In fact, if you
> follow the normal forms, the organization scheme is complete abstracted
> from the structure of the data itself and becomes an attribute of
> particular queries instead.
>
> Another difference: hierarchies have only the single way of indicating
> a relationship between two kinds of things, which is placing them in
> adjacent levels in the hierarchy ("containment".) This is sufficient
> for modelling many-to-one relationships, but fails at many-to-many
> relationships. Relations have no trouble with many-to-many
> relationships.

> In fact, it was exactly this surprising quality of relations that
> pierecd my OOP-smug-shield and made me pay attention to them.

I miss my OOP-smug-shield. I felt like batfink, with my wings of steel. After examining set theory and how to apply it to information, it turns out they were made of tissue paper after all.

>
>
> Marshall
Received on Mon Aug 07 2006 - 13:59:12 CEST