I have been visiting the site www.dbdebunk.com recently and have found
the musings of the author interesting. Having seen some disasters in
my time (in terms of adherence to any sort of reasonable database
design), I agree with a lot of what he has to say. I'm not sure that I
completely understand his constant criticism of SQL (more reading
required maybe?).

He is constantly railing against vendor extensions (which, from what
I've read, he would see as corruptions) of the Relational Model,
however my own thougts would be that a competent professional can say
to himself "Right, this isn't fully compliant, but it does what I want
quickly and easily, so I'll use it until something better comes
along".

I would be interested in the opinions of other posters in this group,
particulary from those who have posted stuff in the past about the
need for the data-management industry to get itself some decent
independent standards prevalent in other industries (medical, legal,
architecture...).

Paul...

--

plinehan __at__ yahoo __dot__ __com__

XP Pro, SP 2,

Oracle, 9.2.0.1.0 (Enterprise Ed.)
Interbase 6.0.1.0;

When asking database related questions, please give other posters
some clues, like operating system, version of db being used and DDL.
The exact text and/or number of error messages is useful (!= "it didn't work!").
Thanks.

Furthermore, as a courtesy to those who spend
time analysing and attempting to help, please
do not top post.

Purists (fanatics) in any endeavour should be treated with disdain.

The fact that an extension exists is neither a good thing nor a bad
thing ... it is just a thing. The question should be one of whether
said extension helps solve real-world business problems.

Last time I looked no one from an ANSI committee asked me, or my
business and academic associates, what we needed in the way of
functionality: Oracle has and Oracle has delivered.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damor...@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

Paul,

1. I say nothing about "vendor extensions" as such. My criticism is of
any violation or dismissal of relational principles which is completely
different. If an extension does that, then it's a bad idea.

2. Where you are mistaken is that a vast majority of professionals are
not competent as far as data fundamentals are concerned. They may know
programming or Oracle, but they have little clue of database and
relational fundamentals. Therefore, they cannot assess products or
features properly and confuse what the product does with the correct
way of doing it. It is one thing to be aware of the problems, but use
them because you have no choice (and know what consequences to expect),
and another to be oblivious to the problems.

So be very careful with the replies you receive from Oracle
professionals. Morgan is an excellent example. For my comments on his
competence see:

http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/1770593.htm
http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/1477865.htm

The relational model is application of science--logic and math--to
database management. The notion that one is "fanatic" about that is
tantamount to claiming that civil engineering is fanatical about the
laws of physics. Such a claim reveals problems more serious than
ignorance of data fundamentals, and THAT is what deserves disdain.

Why? Because you are a purist or for some reason that supports the
business use of the tool?

No argument here. But the ignorance, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to
whether a vendor adds an extension to their product (unless it is a
help system).

Again ... true but irrelevant.

Your self-aggrandizement goes beyond even that I am capable of and I
have never been accused of being shy.

The rules of physics were not created by physicists ... they were
created by (take your pick) the underlying principles by which the
universe exists or god. Last time I checked relational algebra was
man made and both Codd and Date were human.

A database is a tool. When the use of the tool provides value to a
business or organization it is a plus: When it does not it is a
negative. That the person wielding the hammer is more or less competent
is a diversion.

That an object-extension does not fit cleanly within some theoretical
framework is irrelevant to anyone except a purist. If use of that
object-extension allows the more accurate modeling of a business
requirement and interface with an OO front-end it is a plus. If it does
not then it should die on the drawing board.

There are plenty of places where, in the real world, relational theory
breaks down when it comes to application. Not once have I seen fifth
normal form in a production application: Have you?
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damor...@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

Sorry, but you did not understand one word I said. And I am not
surprised, because you don't have the necessary knowledge.  What is
more, there is too little intellect and reasoning ability there for me
to bother, because I won't have any effect.

I will let the readers who have the necessary capacity and knowledge to
judge who makes sense.

Somebody's going to have to make sense, 'cause you're not.

Are you sure you're not the conceited idiot Toral who just got fired tonight
on The Apprentice?  You sure sound like her.

For opinions on Fabian Pascal by Oracle professionals who also are
competent on fundamentals (and can reason properly) see the Dizwell,
Tom Kyte, Jonathan Lewis. They sometimes comment on dbdebunk.

http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/2089650.htm shows that he still
really thinks everyone is stupid and has a low opinion of the great
unwashed masses.  I seemed to have got some small measure of fame from
upbraiding him about this 15 years ago on compuserve, when he was
abusing some poor soul because his damagement weren't caring about
whether database products had completely implemented the relational
model.

Aside from not respecting the average geek, I think he is right on
technically and theoretically.  Don't see how to get there practically
(although we can hope Tom Kyte can make it so).

So are you, in his words, "oblivious to the problems" or not?

I can say I am pretty much oblivious to the problems, since "the
marketplace" wants results from me, so how to do that is the stuff I
tend to remember and care about.  Since I started with relational
databases before SQL was the, um, standard data interchange language, I
do sometimes wish things were different, in the manner Fabian
advocates.  Then I run into this XML crap and go "What the heck do we
do now???"

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/ecard/scripts/addSignaturesForm.php

really thinks everyone is stupid and has a low opinion of the great
unwashed masses.  I seemed to have got some small measure of fame from
upbraiding him about this 15 years ago on compuserve, when he was
abusing some poor soul because his damagement weren't caring about
whether database products had completely implemented the relational
model.

Do you think I have any REASON to think that? Have I taken this
position WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE? Or is my LOGIC in claiming that wrong?
If so, defend your position. Just claiming things without evidence and
ignoring the fact only proves my position.

If so, defend your position. Just >claiming things without evidence and

ignoring the fact only proves my >position.

What logic?  You state most people in the industry are uninformed,
80%-90% of pronouncements are wrong.  Where do you get such statistics?
  Where is your evidence?  Do you not see a problem with telling people
to claim things with evidence while you make stuff up?

I personally agree with many of the statements, but to make up
statistics... well, I don't think Mr. Lewis or Mr. Kyte would take
kindly to that, unless maybe you clearly stated you were making them
up.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/26/1739234&tid=187&tid=1...