Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements

"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1155093201.689872.230930_at_h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> that pre-dates me. MultiValued databases pre-date 1NF. I'm definitely
> not diss'ing the relational model...

I think you ARE dissing the relational model, Dawn.

> ... like the RM-advocates have trashed
> the models that came before it (even though they seemed to have ZERO
> emperical data to prove their point).

Not true, at least in terms of the material I read when I first read about relational databases. The material I read certainly compared the relational model with two earleir models, the hierarchical and the network model. They certainly pointed out some weaknesses in those two models, ones that the writers claimed the relational model overcame. However, it's a gross overstatement to say that they "trashed" those two models. Again, I'm commenting on the material I read about 20 years ago. The material you read may have been different.

I also disagree about the lack of empirical data to prove their point. The experience of tens of thousands of database builders and users may not come up to the standard of "scientific data", but it is certainly "empirical data". It is you who intentionally ignore that enormous body of data, calling attention only to the failures that have cropped up in that experiences and overlooking a massive amount of success.

I certainly have NEVER maintained that the relational model is the end of history as far as data modelling goes. But a return to a pre-relational model seems to me to be a waste of time. I remain unconvinced by your arguments, as far as I got in reading them. Received on Wed Aug 09 2006 - 12:50:01 CEST