Post-Relational Databases

I just recently came across Post-Relational databases, strange I never heard
of them before. Anyone any experience of them, are they going to be the next
generation of databases as I heard one guy claim!?
Thanks
NYes, that old dilemma - is reality made up of relations or objects? :)
ML
http://milambda.blogspot.com/|||So its just an OO Database. I'm a relational man myself!
"NH" wrote:

> I just recently came across Post-Relational databases, strange I never hea
rd
> of them before. Anyone any experience of them, are they going to be the ne
xt
> generation of databases as I heard one guy claim!?
> Thanks
> N|||I thought we realted objects in the relational database :)
"ML" wrote:

> Yes, that old dilemma - is reality made up of relations or objects? :)
>
> ML
> --
> http://milambda.blogspot.com/|||ML wrote:
> Yes, that old dilemma - is reality made up of relations or objects? :)
>
Neither. Both are abstractions. What does "post-relational" mean to
you?
More appropriate for comp.databases.theory anyway.
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/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||> Neither. Both are abstractions.
Absolutely. No argument there.

> What does "post-relational" mean to you?
Seriously? Well, no offense indended but the first time I heard this
expression I thought it had to do with divorce. Maybe even a weird
puritanistic definition of the state two (or more) sexual partners are in
after sexual intercourse.
ML
http://milambda.blogspot.com/|||"ML" <ML@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9E68AE41-2414-4B49-A8BE-FC078B2D4BA8@.microsoft.com...
> Absolutely. No argument there.
>
> Seriously? Well, no offense indended but the first time I heard this
> expression I thought it had to do with divorce. Maybe even a weird
> puritanistic definition of the state two (or more) sexual partners are in
> after sexual intercourse.
>
> ML
> --
> http://milambda.blogspot.com/
I get it. NH's posts didn't show up at first so I thought you started the
thread.
Post-relational is what XML fans call the hierachical model. The rest of us
call it Pre-Relational.
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/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx|||A brief look at Matisse (for example) gives the impression of another layer
of abstraction on top of a "regular" relational model.
Sometimes abstraction is good, but sooner or later...
abstraction = confusion
ML
http://milambda.blogspot.com/|||> Post-relational is what XML fans call the hierachical model. The rest of us call it[color
=darkred]
> Pre-Relational.[/color]
LOL!
That's a classic.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:es6j0GzfGHA.5092@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "ML" <ML@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9E68AE41-2414-4B49-A8BE-FC078B2D4BA8@.microsoft.com...
> I get it. NH's posts didn't show up at first so I thought you started the
thread.
> Post-relational is what XML fans call the hierachical model. The rest of u
s call it
> Pre-Relational.
> --
> 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/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
> --
>
>|||"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:1148473208.702352.33010@.g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> More appropriate for comp.databases.theory anyway.
Yup. We never get into theory in this forum.
=P