Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!oliveb!pyramid!uccba!hal!ncoast!allbery
From: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Database implementation/theory issues?
Message-ID: <7504@ncoast.UUCP>
Date: 13 Mar 88 23:26:52 GMT
References: <33671UH2@PSUVM> <232@cullsj.UUCP> <725@smidefix.liu.se> <415@white.gcm> <733@senilix.liu.se>
Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery)
Followup-To: comp.databases
Organization: Cleveland Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, Oh
Lines: 27

As quoted from <733@senilix.liu.se> by gorry@senilix.liu.se (Goran Rydquist):
+---------------
| I wrote this some time ago
| 
| >)The greatest evil in today database theory is the unquestioned (?) assumption
| >)that the data model must be based on records.
| 
| and got answers like
| 
| >In twenty-five pages the author must have had some arguments
| 
| so ... I'll give you some of my own arguments, much inspired by the original
| article of course.
+---------------

Which he proceeds to do.

One problem.  I don't see any incriminating evidence against *records*; I
see incriminating evidence against *static schemas*, a different kettle of
fish entirely.  The concept of a *record* (i.e. an object composed of fields)
still remains in the new system.

The proposed system sounds to me like an obvious extension to relational
databases.  (Relational purists will probably flame me to death for that!)
-- 
	      Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc
       {well!hoptoad,uunet!hnsurg3,cbosgd,sun!mandrill}!ncoast!allbery