> Transfered here from "Multiplicity, Change and MV" thread (at OP's
request).
> 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. What I have described as a thing with multiple classes, ORM
refers to as SubTyping. When I talked about recursion and that
properties and values can themselves have their own properties and
values and so on, is what ORM refers to as "nested fact types". What I
have described as verbs, ORM refers to as Roles. What I have described
as things can have bi-directional or multiple relation****ps, ORM
describes as objects can have binary, tertiary and higher order roles.
Albeit, there are differences. For example, ORM has standardized
methods to specify common constriants that are not part of my data
model, but none of which that can't be represented as data.
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. Would you or
someone be willing to demonstrate it here and compare it with the
experimental db?
|
