I think the practice of exploitations of relation control systems for
control databases discovered considerable limitations into a relation
model of data presentation. Nowadays necessity has shown up to refuse
the relation mode and to pay attention to the undeservedly forgotten
network or object-oriented models of data representing. In the nearest
future that will allow us to achieve a noticeable success in artificial
intelligence using for resolving actual problems of nowadays
business.... http://www.shuklin.com/ai/ht/en/ai05001f.aspx

WBR,
Dmitry Shuklin

Dmitry Shuklin wrote:
Khe khe isn't that a bit provocative to post such a message in _this_
forum?
OK I can agree with the general concept that relational data bases will
someday be replaced with some other technology. Countries, nations and
technologies come and go, why RDBMSes should be exception? I'm not
sooooo much competent to argue whether they'd be some OO, network OO
(most probably not) or whatever, but I'd like to argue with some
introductory thoughts:
"Even data saved into bases is not of a great value of itself. The main
value is the complete applications that allow users to model some
aspects of their activities and business using computer engineering."

I think that the main value is the data. In the worst case data with
some more or less suitable app. Without the data you can have the best
app in the world, but it has zero value, unless you put the data in.
Google without the data would be nothing. If you have data you can
build app on it or access them with a text readable tool If you have
only app, in many cases at least you cannot get historical data. They
can be lost forever. Applications come and go, but data remain.
Probably data change and evolve, but remain. Of course if you initially
collected wrong, unusable, disintegrated and unnecessary data (i.e.
you'v initially created data waste not database) that's completely
another question.

Gints Plivna
http://www.gplivna.eu/

Dmitry Shuklin wrote:
First impressions can be lasting impressions. And I understand that
English is not your native language. So I would suggest hiring a
proofreader (native English speaker) because your writing is horrible.

Scanning through the beginning of your article, you claim a supposed
inflexibility for the "relation model" (that should be Relational
model). Now the fact is that a network model database is even less
flexible.

You may have some good ideas, but you are going to have to improve
their presentation before you get support. just the grammar was bad
enough that I stopped reading.

good luck.
Ed

Dmitry Shuklin wrote:
The fact that you've cited [1] as a source damages your credibility
much more than the limitations of your English.

That Bloor report is just a silly piece of marketing nonsense. It is
full of basic errors.

--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP

Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.

SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/m...S,SQL.90).aspx
--

Hi David,

I understand that You protect your favorite technology. RDBMS is a good
DB but not prefect. For example, a table is just a special case of a
graph or network. So network databases can do all that can do RDB. But
RDB can't do all that can do NDB.
Even I by my self can make research implementation of network DB which
successfully emulates RDBMS. I have even implemented object
identification synonymy/homonymy conception and undo/redo transactions.
Everybody can download it from
http://www.shuklin.com/ai/ht/en/cerebrum/ and see results of my
experiments. So i fully assured that i am right in general view. Of
course some small special ideas can be wrong.

WBR,
Dmitry Shuklin, Ph.D

Dmitry Shuklin wrote:
Give just ONE example. I sincerely doubt there is anything you can do
in a network model DB that cannot be done at least as well in a
Relational model DB.


Sorry, but all I see on that page is a couple claims, no supporting
data. I will not download some unknown executable. Make a case without
having us run your program for you.

Example how did you conclude:
"the usage of relational database systems to solve this kind of
problems is not applicable" ?

I added comp.databases.theory as that is the group you should likely be
talking to.


Ed

Hi,

Trees )) I think You understand what I mean. Of course on the same
abstraction level as the relational model works. You can emulate trees
on RMD. But it will cause more abstraction levels to appear.

In fact i am interested in emulation of artificial neural network.
Making ANN with SQL - ha ha ha.

Sorry, i don't have any artiles on English describing my OODB research
yet (((
And even when you download zip you can find there only C# sources. no
documentation (((

I know, i know (((

What differ my DB from the rest? :

- one object can have a many ObjectIDs
- one ObjectID can address many different object instances
- multilevel undo/redo transactions are supported

What restrictions current version has?
- only single user mode.
- only single thread.


WBR,
Dmitry

3 simple questions...

What exactly is the purpose of your revolutionnary technology?
What kind of complexity is your technology able to handle when it comes
to data types?
How do you derive values from domains of values in an ensemblist
perspective (for instance odd integers from integers)?

Dmitry Shuklin wrote:

Dmitry Shuklin wrote:

Emulate? How exactly does the transitive closure operation emulate? How
exactly do value-based references emulate?


In short, no logical identity whatsoever. Sounds, um, charming. ::rolls
eyes::


Wee!


So, can we assume it fully supports join, project, extend, union,
intersect, transitive closure, restrict, the existential quantifier and
the universal quantifier? Or do you not consider the lack of any of
those 'restrictions'?

I am not sure if this would qualify, but I would like to see an
equivalent RMDB implementation (and also how resilient it is to
handling additional data that is unknown during initial db design) for
the example posted at www.dbfordummies.com/example/ex039.asp

This example represents a Food Judging Contest. There are three
persons. The first named john (aka johnathan) is a judge. The second
named john (aka johnny) is a contestant. The third whose name is
unknown is a spectator and his age is 28.

There are four food entries. The first is named leftOver1 which is soft
and spicy The second is named apple1 which is crunchy and sweet. The
third is named broccoli1 which is crunchy. The fourth is named tomato1
which is soft, sweet and sour.

Judge john likes leftOver1 and tomato1. Contestant john likes apple1
and tomato1. Spectator likes broccoli1 and tomato1. In addition, judge
john likes contestant john.

There are a number of queries such as:
What entries does judge john (aka johnathan) like?
Which fruit entries does contestant john (aka johnny) like?
Which vegetable entries does spectator (of age 28) like?
Which fruit/vegetable entries johnathan likes?
Tomato1 is liked by who?
Which persons who likes crunchy vegetables?
Which person likes something that is both a fruit and vegetable?
Which entry do judges, contestants and spectators like?
Which person likes another person who likes a fruit/vegetable entry?
Which person likes something which likes something that is soft,
sweet/sour?

Additional details are documented in comments throughout the script.