 | |
Binary Relational Modeling call
comp.databases.theory comp.databases.theory
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Binary Relational Modeling call -
09-16-2011
, 06:23 AM
#32
| |||
| |||
|
|
wiki: "A relation is a data structure which consists of a heading and an unordered set of tuples which share the same type." wiki: "In mathematics, a binary relation on a set A is a collection of ordered pairs of elements of A. In other words, it is a subset of the Cartesianproduct A2 = A × A. More generally, a binary relation between twosets A and B is a subset of A × B." says nothing about difference between "relation" and "relationships". binary relations? exactly what i have in mind: every binary relation can be implemented as table of pairs (2 field tuples) of references to sets' elements. |
#33
| |||
| |||
|
|
Ivan wrote: wiki: "A relation is a data structure which consists of a heading and an unordered set of tuples which share the same type." wiki: "In mathematics, a binary relation on a set A is a collection of ordered pairs of elements of A. In other words, it is a subset of the Cartesian product A2 = A × A. More generally, a binary relation between two sets Aand B is a subset of A × B." says nothing about difference between "relation" and "relationships". binary relations? exactly what i have in mind: every binary relation can be implemented as table of pairs (2 field tuples) of references to sets' elements. What does the ever-so-omniscient wiki way about n-ary relations? |
elements" ?????????
#34
| |||
| |||
|
|
guys, i'm sincerely sorry i lose temper back there. You certainly didn't deserve that kind of treatment from me. i think You were just trying to protect each other from my nonsense. just, it took me so long to reach this stage of knowledge (in whatever infancy state it is). particularly, 15 years of thinking and thinking and thinking. you can imagine under what pressure i am for reaching so little in so much time. Since I've got some experience about databases and SQL, one assumption constantly twinkled in my head: there has to be a better way for defining databases. I was imagining some cool and neat model for representing tables, records and relations that will simply "be the one". Since then I have experimented with different exotic visual representations of data that was crossing my mind. And then I saw it! It was literally love at first sight. The same power of SQL's database defining, but with much simpler rules. So simple that I decided to give it a name. The name was Binary Relational Modeling.. After setting up a dedicated site, I entered the same name in Google and realized that similar (if not the same) approaches already exist, even under the same name. After initial shock, when I gathered myself in, I found myself surprised why a wider use of the technology isn't already in a full swing by now. So I decided to share my experiences with programmers interested in alternative database technologies. i hope You will forgive me for loosing temper, i was under great pressure.. i'll try to be a good one from now on, i promise :x |
Relations is more elaborate than that of n-ary Relations. The fact
that there is no killer application for Binary relations is
unfortunate, but it is not for the lack of trying. If you are
genuinely interested learning the subject something like RelView
(http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~progsys/relview/) would be a good
start.
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.