>>> Jay Dee: The most resilient designs are those which accurately
represent data, not relation****ps. In that vein, I've found Halpern's ORM
approach to be helpful -- although his goal of discovering objects is, I
feel, slightly off the mark.
..
>> Neo: Would you (or someone) be willing to demonstrate this resiliency
starting with ... simple example and then extending a bit further?
..
> Bob Badour: Neo, you are so full of **** your eyes must be brown. You
are an ignorant who doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. NIAM,
nijssen and halpin. They set the reference point for conceptual modelling
about 20 years ago. Since that time, I have seen nothing I would consider
a groundshaking improvement; although, Jan or Vadim might have a better
idea if something significantly changed the state of the art in recent
years.
This is so funny! Bob, for half a decade you have been telling me that
my data model couldn't possibly work, that I didn't have this or that
operator, or this or that predicate, didn't attend this or that
college, or have this or that experience; yet NIAM/ORM as explained at
http://essentialstrategies.com/publications/modeling/niam.htm
has quite
a few similarities to mine! Actually mine is more general! Now I had
been using my own terminology to describe pretty much the same things
but you called me an IDIOT! When I first described objects, the type of
object I was referring to is what ORM refers to as objects! But you
told me I couldn't use that term since it already meant code+data as
defined by object-oriented programming. So I changed from objects to
things. And because I don't have a control that can display circles and
boxes with line between them, I display the same information in a tree
and you railed that I was reinventing the hierarchal data model! I told
you it was similar to a network of nodes. You railed that I was
reinventing the network data model! But if you look at the diagram on
the above NIAM/ORM web page, the network I was referring to is very
similar to that formed by the various circles and squares with lines
between them! What I have described as types/classes, ORM refers to as
domains. When I talked about recursion and that properties and values
can themselves have their own properties and values and so on, is what
ORM calls "nested fact types". Albeit, there are some differences.
In fact I can use the experimental db to store the data (at least the
part that I can understand) in the shown ORM diagram in a normalized
and NULL-less manner and doesn't ever require the user to specify a
schema, normalize data, or worry about IDs and referential integrity.
Is there another tool that does similar? Does that tool store the data
in a RMDB? If so, I assert that it won't be as flexible as mine. Would
someone (Bob?) be willing to demonstrate it here and compare it with
the experimental db?
|
