The OverRelational Manifesto. VOCIFEROUS IGNORANCE vs. NUMB DOGMA.
U-gene
IGNORANCE and in "Laugh or Cry" part. I don't think it is a problem,
because all things, which are out of numb dogma, look like vociferous
ignorance from point of view of this dogma.
But what is a trouble? "TheORM" realize the Relation Data Model and TTM
do it too. May be we have two different Relation Data Models? :)
What does TheORM think the relational data model is? I'll repeat it
ones again. Any data model is defined as totality of 1) a collection of
types....2) a collection of operators or inferencing rules...3) a
collection of general integrity rules...". This well-known definition
can differ in different sources but idea is the same - Types &
Operations & Constrains (TOC). It is just kind of mathematics. So when
"TheORM' speaks about relational data model it means 1) relations,
which are defined on a set of scalar domains (any domains as you wish
it they are scalar ones only) 2) operations of relational algebra 3)
keys (at least). The system, which implements RMD, has to fulfil basic
principle of the relational model: all information is represented by
data values in relations. It means that this system have to realize
variables designed to contain relation(values) and all data, which
exist in system, have to exist as values of these variables and to be
accessible in these variables. Of course the system has to implement
operations and constains existing in the data model. It is well-know
idea (very roughly presented here) and from its point of view "TheORM"
describes the system which is true relational system.
Trying to find definition of concept "data model" in TTM you will meet
on the first pages very strange definition of something that TTM calls
as just "model". This " model" is defined as abstract, confined
definition of objects, operations etc. what together represents
abstract machine, which end user interacts with (I'm sorry I don't
have TTM in English, so I cannot give exact citation - you can find it
at chapter "1" where TTM says about big logical difference between the
model and the implementation).
As you can see definition of TTM's "model" differs from TOC-definition
of data model. Is this difference big?
As I say TOC definition of data model is a mathematical one and I can
give very simple mathematical analogy to make this difference clear.
Different kinds of mathematics exist - for example arithmetic.
Arithmetic operates with integer numbers (i.e. values) and defines some
operations on these numbers. Computing system, which implements
arithmetic (physically it can be abacus or mechanical calculating
machine or electronic calculator or computer or something else but here
I'm speaking about very abstract arithmetical computing system), must
have variables, which contains values (integer digits here) and must
implement integer operations.
If in arithmetical computing system the variables exist, which can
contain not arithmetical values, or this system make wrong calculation
(2 + 2 = 5) - the system cannot be named as pure and true
arithmetical system. So the arithmetic is the criterion of truth, the
use of which allows us to assert if some system true or false
implementation of this arithmetic.
But can somebody say, that "arithmetic defines abstract, confined
definition of objects operation etc. what together represent abstract
calculating system, which end user interacts with"? For example in this
system operation exists, which create variables of integer type. Let me
know the way, in which this operation is defined in arithmetic or show
me something else in arithmetic what means this variable! Arithmetic
looks like all-sufficient logical formation what manipulates with
values only. There are no integer variables in arithmetics - only
values are operated with it - and arithmetic doesn't need any
implementations, any variables and any languages to be truth. Variables
exist only in system, because a variable is the only possibility for
system to implement existence of a value. So when somebody says about
integer variables and, all the more, about possible ways and
expressions, which have to be used to define these variables in system
(even if this system is very abstract and the expressions is very
common), - he says about implementation of arithmetical system, but
not about arithmetic itself.
According to TOC-definition, data model is all-sufficient logical
formation what manipulates only with values too (data model defines set
of types where each type is a set of values- nothing more). This
mathematical formation can act as criterion of truth (for example, SQL
systems, which allow duplicate rows in a table, is not true relational
systems). Of course the necessity exists to build system, which is true
implementation of relational data mode, but this is not RDM's
necessity. There are no relvars in RDM, but (somehow or other) the
relvars have to exist in the system because relvars is the only
possibility for the system to implement existence of relations. And
there are no any prescriptions to system in relational data model
because this model (in according to TOC definition) is all-sufficient.
All this means that TTM (good few of prescriptions of which concerns to
relvars and to possible ways and expressions, which have to be used to
define the relvars in system) is more than just data model (according
to TOC). Really it defines very abstract implementation of relational
data model too. Of course, this is very formal, logical and true
relational implementation (and this is TTM's great achievements) - but
TTM is not the relational data model according to TOC definition. TTM's
''model" describes "abstract machine" and this " model" differs from
RDM as well as some (very abstract) implementation of some TOC data
model differs from the data model itself. IMHO it's big difference.
The trouble is that TTM's progeny believe that TTM shows only true way
to only true relational system. It means that TTM's progeny rejects all
doubts about its impeccability, not trying to understand if these
doubts are the ones about relational data model (which is mathematical
formation) or about "the_model" (which describe abstract implementation
of RDM). If TTM's progeny hear something that differs from TTM's
statements they simple shout "this is stupid idea". If TTM's progeny
cannot argue their right they simple call the opponents as ignorant.
Only drop of logic exists in their words but all other is vacant trust
in self-impeccability. TTM's progeny aren't stupid of course but they
cannot understand other ideas only because they cannot imagine that
other ideas can exist or be true. TTM and its " model" become the numb
dogma for these guys. They cannot understand, that idea of
"OverRelational"systems has the foundation what exists in TTM.
Fact is that abstract system defined by TTM is programmable system.
Fact is that the language used to program this system is
Turing-complete language (I'm sorry again, I don't have TTM in English
- in Russian it sounds as "computationally-complete language"). All
it means, that programm, which manipulate with this system, can be the
result of tranaslation from other programm languages with some
translator (which can be programm run by the same system).
There is nothing new here. This way has already passed by von-Neumann's
computer evolutionally. All existing OO-programming(and other) systems
runned with computers built on von Nemann's principles are results of
this evolution. Does these system contradict with von Neumann's
principles? No - they are built OVER computers, which realized the
ones. Does these system refute simple types, which is realized by
these computers? No - they use these types as base types. Does they
suppose that data must exist in the computers not as a set of values of
variables of base types? No - but they allow users to manipulate with
these variables in other way. This way allows to organize simple
variables in complex structures and manipulates with these variables as
they are a parts of complex structures. This is possible and usual way
to use any programmable machine and IMHO nothing prevents to use this
way for abstract relational machine. The Over Relational Manifesto have
it done.
The Over Relational Manifesto doesn't try change realtional data model
and fulfils basic principle of the relational model: all information
is represented by data values in relations. But TheORM supposes only,
that relvars, which is used to contain these relations, can be defined
in other way, not such direct and evident as "CREATE RELVAR
RelVarNAME...". ( direct way to create these variables is accessable
too: "...TheORM considers as useful and necessary the possibility of
defining and using global variables of value types..." where "value
type" is one of scalar, tuple or relation types). This indirect way
allows describe something, what is more complex than single relation
and manipulate with data contained in the relvars as with a part of
these more complex structure. This the "something" is named as
molecular semantic units in "RM/T" (by E.F.Codd). "TheORM" calls they
just as object. Anyway - possibilities to define such complex pieces of
data can be really helpful.
Once again: relvars exist, have name and are accessable for users.
"TheORM"'s news is that they can be defined both in direct and indirect
way and their values can be changed both in direct and indirect way. Do
these assumptions contradict relational data model? No, they don't. Do
they contradict relational TTM's "model"? I think "No" because this
"model" can execute "TheORM"'s system.
(but...are you going to answer "yes"? ...then what is a truth here? )
Marshall
> [............................]
My difficulty with the ORM (besides the grandiose name,) is that
I can't seem to make it to the end of your posts. I get through
a bunch of introductory paragraphs where I can't pin down anything
you're saying, and I lose interest. I have a short attention span.
I vaguely sense that you're saying something, and that it's not
even all that huge a thing you're saying. But I'm not willing to
spend an hour to sort through all the words to try to find one idea.
In the US we say "brevity is the soul of wit."
I would be happy to discuss your idea(s) if I could figure out
what they are. That would be a lot easier if you would ruthlessly
edit your posts. I believe you are looking at features of relational
languages, yes? Try to express the proposed feature in a few,
or ideally one sentence.
Marshall
JOG
> U-gene wrote:
> > [............................]
>
> My difficulty with the ORM (besides the grandiose name,) is that
> I can't seem to make it to the end of your posts. I get through
> a bunch of introductory paragraphs where I can't pin down anything
> you're saying, and I lose interest. I have a short attention span.
>
I absolutely agree. I can honestly say I still have no idea what the
'ORM' is.
Perhaps the OP could post his point succinctly (one or two short
paragraphs say), and I might be able to digest it?
> I vaguely sense that you're saying something, and that it's not
> even all that huge a thing you're saying. But I'm not willing to
> spend an hour to sort through all the words to try to find one idea.
>
> In the US we say "brevity is the soul of wit."
Yes, a great quote from that famous US citizen, William Shakespeare.
(cough ;)
Marshall
> Marshall wrote:
> >
> > In the US we say "brevity is the soul of wit."
>
> Yes, a great quote from that famous US citizen, William Shakespeare.
> (cough ;)
Hey! I didn't say an American said it; I said we say it in America. :-)
We go around all day in our SUVs, wearing cowboy hats, and quoting
Shakespeare, Jane Austen, and the Beatles. It's common for junior
high school students to get in to fights over who was the better
prime minister, Gladstone or Disraeli. Youth gangs often identify
with either the late romantics or the Victorian poets, and have
rumbles about Shelly vs. whoever, sometimes dressed as members
of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. Just the other day, I read a
poem by Christina Rosetti at a wedding, and a rival gang of
Byronites almost started a riot.
"When I am dead my Dearest,
Sing no sad songs for me, ..."
My new favorite Shakespeare quote: "He jests at scars that
never felt a wound." Appears immediately prior to a much
more familiar quote.
Marshall
PS. There was actually a Disraeli reference on Family Guy a while
ago, so you know I must be telling the truth.
JOG
> JOG wrote:
> > Marshall wrote:
> > >
> > > In the US we say "brevity is the soul of wit."
> >
> > Yes, a great quote from that famous US citizen, William Shakespeare.
> > (cough ;)
>
> Hey! I didn't say an American said it; I said we say it in America. :-)
> We go around all day in our SUVs, wearing cowboy hats, and quoting
> Shakespeare, Jane Austen, and the Beatles. It's common for junior
> high school students to get in to fights over who was the better
> prime minister, Gladstone or Disraeli. Youth gangs often identify
> with either the late romantics or the Victorian poets, and have
> rumbles about Shelly vs. whoever, sometimes dressed as members
> of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. Just the other day, I read a
> poem by Christina Rosetti at a wedding, and a rival gang of
> Byronites almost started a riot.
>
Heh, brilliant. You, sir, are seriously wasted in IT.
Alfredo Novoa
>My difficulty with the ORM (besides the grandiose name,) is that
>I can't seem to make it to the end of your posts. I get through
>a bunch of introductory paragraphs where I can't pin down anything
>you're saying, and I lose interest. I have a short attention span.
When somebody has something interesting to say he does not try hide it
under tons of pap.
>In the US we say "brevity is the soul of wit."
In Spain we say "brief and good two times good".
Regards
Alfredo
U-gene
I'm sorry of taking your time. But if you cannot find any mistakes in
this introduction it a good sign for me. I'm just not sure that
everybody will agree that it's really correct .
>>...Try to express the proposed feature in a few, or ideally one sentence...
It's a good idea... but can you express such well-known idea(s) as TTM
or RDM in "in a few, or ideally one sentence"? Please, give me
example(link) how to do it - I will use it as an example of brevity :).
Ok? But I'm going to try it anyway.
>>...with the ORM (besides the grandiose name)
I will not use abbrevation "TheORM" in future. But before I want note,
that it was abbreviation of "The OverRelational Manifesto"(next I will
use only full name of this article), where I describe a kind of
relational system named as RxO system (this ''x" between "R" and "O"
means multiplication sign) and find possibilites to realize this RxO
system on existing system implemented RDM somehow or other.
>>...I believe you are looking at features of relational languages, yes?
Yes. But I'm not sure, that we mean word "relational" in the same way.
Does it mean "all data exist as set of relations in a system what uses
this language" or "all data are evidently and directly defined as set
of relations with this language"? The second means the first, but not
conversely.
The mainest feature is that relvars can be defined in other way, not
such direct and evident as "CREATE RELVAR RelVarNAME...".. This
indirect way allows describe something, what is more complex than
single relation and manipulate with data contained in the relvars as
with a part of these more complex structure. I can name something what
is described with theis complex structure as MSU. The system object,
which is user to contain value about some MSU items, "The
ObjectRelational Manifesto" calls just as "object". So "The
ObjectRelational Manifesto" uses term "object" in different way then
term "scalar"(scalar type = relational domain) but this is just using
of some term to denote something what exists in system - nothing
principial :). RxO-system allows describe objects, create them,
manipulate with them (not only with their values but with structure
too), and destroy them.
"...In the general case, the specification of an object type includes
1. the type name;
2. a list of parent types (unless otherwise is defined explicitly, the
parent type is the Object type implicitly);
3. a collection of specifications of components, which include (a) the
component name; (b) the value type of the component, and (c),
optionally, the set of parameters each one described as a pair
<parameter name, value type of the parameter>;
4. a set of data integrity constraints, i.e., keys...."
...where "...The value types are the following:
1. scalar type including the basic ones (numerical, symbolic, Boolean,
etc.) and reference types.
2. constructed tuple type. A value of this type (hereinafter, a tuple)
is a set of pairs "an attribute name, a value of the attribute of the
scalar type." Accordingly, the tuple type is defined as a set of
pairs "attribute name, scalar type of the attribute."
3. constructed set type. A value of this type (hereinafter, a set) is a
set of scalar or tuple values. Accordingly, a set-type variable is
defined as (variable_name AS SET OF name_of_scalar_or_tuple_type)..."
As you can see there is two kinds of types in RxO system - value (and
they are very-very similar to TTM's "types that allow relational
assignment") and object type - this type is more complex than single
relations (0NF). Object types partisipate in inheritance and can have
attributed component.
....Oops:) It's a second page in Word but I'm just beginnig. I'm really
trying to be short, but I prefer to be accurate in all my statements
becouse I'm really afraid to become misunderstood trying to be short. I
just understand that if I don't explane some term and some beginning
ideas I'll hear "stupid" and "ignorant" And I'm not sure if you have a
time to read it. I can continue here (just give me a sign), or you can
find all this in my paper (anyway I've citated it here).
U-gene
Russian say that "brevity is sister of talent" :)
But...Look, Alfredo. I have D&D's TTM in Russian on my table. There are
638 pages into this book :) I have PDF file with Codd's RM/T in my
computer. There are 36 pages into it. Does it mean that these person
are untalented?
I prefer to be brief in system language even if it needs a toon of
paper to explain how this system work.
Marshall
> Marshall wrote:
>
> >My difficulty with the ORM (besides the grandiose name,) is that
> >I can't seem to make it to the end of your posts. I get through
> >a bunch of introductory paragraphs where I can't pin down anything
> >you're saying, and I lose interest. I have a short attention span.
>
> When somebody has something interesting to say he does not try hide it
> under tons of pap.
Agreed. However, it is also the case that good, clear writing is hard.
> >In the US we say "brevity is the soul of wit."
>
> In Spain we say "brief and good two times good".
Nice.
Marshall
x
"Marshall" <marshal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147961651.2...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> > Marshall wrote:
> >
> > >My difficulty with the ORM (besides the grandiose name,) is that
> > >I can't seem to make it to the end of your posts. I get through
> > >a bunch of introductory paragraphs where I can't pin down anything
> > >you're saying, and I lose interest. I have a short attention span.
> >
> > When somebody has something interesting to say he does not try hide it
> > under tons of pap.
> Agreed. However, it is also the case that good, clear writing is hard.
Especially when the writer doesn't know what he is writing.
Mikito Harakiri
> It's a good idea... but can you express such well-known idea(s) as TTM
> or RDM in "in a few, or ideally one sentence"? Please, give me
> example(link) how to do it - I will use it as an example of brevity :).
Manifesto:
"workers all over the world unite!"
RDM:
"select ename from emp e where sal > (select sal from emp m where
e.mgr=m.empno)"
Object Databases Manifesto:
"here is a zillion of complex things you can try with collections"
3-rd Manifesto:
"any attempt to move forward if it is to stand the test of the time
must reject SQL inequivocally"
U-gene
Thank you. Also English is not my native language so I'm not sure
absolutely about my possibilities to expess my ideas clearly.