about brm: a simple, yet powerful rules and cool graphs for database definition. Join as at:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/binary-relational-model

On 2011-09-07, Ivan <ivanvodisek (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Are you actually claiming to have invented something? I can't see it.
And in general we are not impressed by "cool graphs". If we were
actually getting something useful, but I can't see that either as yet.

Eric

--
ms fnd in a lbry

Ivan wrote:

How does this supposedly new model deal with data that are naturally
n-ary relations for n > 2 ?

i hate crossing. you can discuss the materia by visiting the link.

On 2011-09-09, Ivan <ivanvodisek (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Probably not, after that remark. If you don't get talked about outside
a little world of your own creation, you don't get talked about. Your
world has obviously not yet provided a sufficient level of interest to
entice anyone else in.

In any case, what are you aiming at here? An abstract theory, a design
methodology, a diagramming convention, a piece of software? At the moment
I can't tell.

Eric

--
ms fnd in a lbry

all right, i suppose moderator of the group won't be too mad at us, that's all i was having in mind.

i'm honored to have something to share with anyone interested.
i sincerely fill that BRM could aim at SQL's place in programming.

yes, it can manage n-ary relationships.

is it new technology? i found some resources on internet claiming that BRM exist since the year 1984. what is new is its graphing capabilities. to give you a sneak peek, very BRM can be also implemented in itself.

i hope i at least interested you. if i'm not, i'd like to thank you for your time. that's the way to make a progress.

Ivan wrote:

In other words, you are just spamming us to get people to come to a
pointless group you created.

@Bob

do you really think no one could be interested?

Ivan wrote:

I don't really think any educated person could be interested in
something that cannot easily, simply, and directly answer the question:

How does this supposedly new model deal with data that are naturally
n-ary relations for n > 2 ?

On 2011-09-09, Ivan <ivanvodisek (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
**digression**
This is a Usenet group.
There is no moderator.
There is no owner.
It does not reside on any single host.
There is no reliable way to delete your own or anyone else's messages.
Messages may or may not be retained somewhere public essentially for
ever.
**end of digression**

I would have thought that that was an apples/oranges comparison. Unless
you are thinking about diagram-driven software, but that is an
interesting concept not noted for its success except in very specific
areas.

I found a 1982 paper which referred to a 1980 paper (it didn't take me
long, or I wouldn't have bothered), as well as at least one quite recent
paper (2009). I haven't read any more than the synopses, but they all
seem to come from the large collection of people who do not properly
understand the relational model.

I'm afraid that, on the evidence so far, I have to put you in that
category too.

http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/1147347.htm

Just for the interest of others, I will point out that you have had
a very similar conversation with someone on comp.databases , and that
you have this stuff on more than one website. So if you have a purpose
other than getting yourself noticed and generating website traffic,
the sooner it becomes more apparent the better.

Eric

--
ms fnd in a lbry