Thursday, November 21, 2013
Saturday, November 16, 2013
In a comment to one of my posts E writes:
E: Codd has based his model on n-ary relations and that is the key mistake he has made ; that leads to complex structure (absolutely not necessary) and situations where there are no values known and as a consequence the need of the concept we know too well -> the null pointers; bin-ary/2-ary relations (smallest possible) are sufficient to express any predicate/sententional formula and there is no possibility to have something like null; if a value is unknow then we do not know it thus it is not a fact for us thus it is not in our database; function is a special case of a relation...Not accurate.
Saturday, November 9, 2013
1. Quote of the Week.
My best advice in all architecture, and platform choices, like RDBMS vs NoSql. The number 1 question, every single assumption you have about the system, the "this is important because X Y X and this that etc etc. Every single "has to be" you have there, expect every single part of it to change. How would you build your system if every "key fact" was expected to change. These key facts, that are supposed to be pillars are actually volatility themselves and need accounted for, not accepted. --LinkedIn
2. To Laugh or Cry?
3. Online exchanges I participated in
I am referring you back to an item I posted in last update:
4. What do these two items tell you?
Currently search engines are thought of as tools to find text but Ashok Chandra, Microsoft distinguished scientist and general manager of the Interaction and Intent Group at Microsoft Research Silicon Valley, believes people soon will think of search engines as “task engines.”
“Search technology began with words,” says Chandra. “We built a whole search infrastructure around words. But in this new era of search, we are working with entities, because people think in terms of them, such as a hotel, a movie, an event, a hiking trail, or a person. The Leibniz platform is designed from the ground up to deal in entities, with the goal of making it easier for people to accomplish the tasks they set out to do.”
5. And now for something completely different.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
In a previous site update I linked to three online exchanges on my post about E/RM and considered a response. Here's some thoughts.
MQ: I find this a strange discussion - is there value other than in the realm of philosophy? If ERMs are used by IT professionals across the world to direct the design and build of the majority of applications guided by standard methodologies, is the view of this argument that these were all build wrongly? Regardless of success? Out of interest, is there a common Relational Modelling tool, that is not also an ERM tool, that models the full Codd definition? Is the inferred conclusion that only the RM models data, and ERM, BM, OOM, BOM, plus any other techniques do not? I think that is a little limiting.