Re: codd's 12 Rules

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

LOL Joe - +1

I always felt that the ability to use RLA is an advantage, not a 
liability. But the DB bigots - not the exact word I want but good enough 
- just won't buy that.

Cheers
Vern

On 5/17/2013 8:41 PM, Joe Pluta wrote:
> Well, since you're saying it's not your opinion, Vern, then I'm not
> stepping on your toes by saying that this is, in my opinion (one which I
> won't even attempt to hide behind false humility), one of the most
> ridiculous assertions ever made in all of programming.  To boil it down,
> even if the DB2 SQE follows every other stricture and supports every
> other feature of SQL (which it does), then it still wouldn't be
> relational because you can ALSO access the data via RLA.
>
> Well, to extend that incredibly myopic point of view, then EVERY
> database system is non-relational because at the end of the day you can
> use a hex editor to change the data in the file.
>
> So, to anyone who says that RLA invalidates the relational nature of
> DB2, I say go Hex yourself.
>
> :)
>
>
> > I know - go do a google search yourself, as I did - look at the various interpretations - you will see this narrow view. Not mine - just reporting. You didn't quote the bits where I said just this - that there ARE different points of view.
> >
> > But this fact - that we can use DDS to generate and modify tables - this is held up by many to say that this is NOT a relational system. My friend, Dave Odom, is one who tried to tell us this. I don't always agree with him, of course.
> >
> > Vern
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > Rule 0 may already be broken
> > Rule 0: The system must qualify as relational, as a database, and as a management system.
> >
> >
> > Does IBM i DB not qualify as relational? As a database? As a management system?
> >
> > > since there is a non-relational way to manage the database.
> > Isn't that a rather narrow interpretation of the rule? And a narrow interpretation of a management system?
> >
> > -Nathan