Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements

Bob Badour wrote:
> JOG wrote:
> > dawn wrote:
> >
> >>[snippage]
> >>I'm OK if relational theory doesn't cover working with lists as long as
> >>relational theory is not all that is employed. We can use set
> >>processing for some things and pull in the list processing for others.
> >>It is only when relational operators demand exclusivity at some level
> >>that I have a problem with it.
> >
> > Relational operators only demand exclusivity at the bottom level.
> > Anything you want you can layer on top. From your posts I figure that's
> > good enough for you ;)
>
> Jim, if you are going to engage the ignorant cranks and trolls, please,
> do a better job of calling them on their bullshit.
>
> The relational model includes types and the operations on values of
> those types, while only specifying one required type. Which types are
> included in any given design is nearly orthogonal to the RM with the
> exception that a boolean type is required. However, nobody has to layer
> anything on top of the RM to use lists in the RM. One only has to
> include a list type in the design.

Thanks, you are obviously correct.

> I have yet to see any proposal for a useful list type or operations on
> values of a list type that were not already better handled using relations.

Agreed.

> Your recent replies to the cranks and trolls have been incoherent. If
> you are not going to put in the effort to respond coherently to the
> cranks and trolls, you would do us all a favour by simply citing Date's
> _Principle of Incoherence_ and moving on.

I was encouraging movement in position that I saw. I obviously gather you think its a complete waste of time here.

I still want to convince people of what I've learned - while your 'cut the crap' posting style has grown on me a lot, it doesn't seem to do that. Worse still, you don't have to be a genius to see that it often entrenches them, they carry on disseminating mistakes and it perpetuates ignorance as a whole. While you can be very succinct and perceptive at your best, you can be counterproductive at your worst, just perpetuating their positions. You'd be a crap politician (you can take that as a compliment if you so desire).

Now I know your thinking some people can't be convinced, and you'd be spot on. But I'm young and naive so I'm gonna try anyway. No doubt one day soon I'll lose my patience too, but until then you do your shit, and I'll do mine. In the end the goal's the same.

>
>
> >>>but can hardly be processed as a data model.
> >>>I'm guessing that your reference to www was tongue in cheek.
> >>
> >>It was a counter-example. Your words were "information handling" so it
> >>worked.
> >
> > But you knew what I meant dawn, and were just being polemic. Paper
> > holds information, but its not gonna be too hot for data modelling.
>
> Paper works in many applications and worked just fine for a couple
> millenia prior to the advent of computers. I am having trouble
> discerning a point to your stroking the egos of the self-aggrandizing
> ignorants. It seems you are just wasting everyone's time.
>
>
> >>[snippage]
> > Nothing wrong with layers on top of RM and I agree group/ungroup normal
> > form is very interesting.
>
> That depends on exactly what you mean by a layer. There is everything
> wrong with violating the information principle or layering physical
> pointers 'on top of' the RM.
>
>
> >>Pick is practical in a big bang for the buck way.
>
> Bullshit. We have plenty of empirical evidence that Pickies universally
> lack sufficient cognition to evaluate their own solutions. We have
> plenty of empirical evidence that Pick forces causual users to have
> expert level file processing skills in order to effectively use the
> product. We have plenty of empirical evidence...

I'd appreciate if you stopped mixing posts from different authors. Its confusing and they start to look like neo's. Received on Wed Aug 16 2006 - 16:57:30 CEST