Principle of Orthogonal Design

I was wondering what your current stances towards the principle of
current design is cdt - info about the POOD is actually pretty sparse
on google, which has not helped my own understanding. I gather that
Date has realigned his opinion - although what to I know not - and
that Darwen rejected the original POOD paper outright given that
McGovern posits that:

R1 { X INTEGER, Y INTEGER }
R2 { A INTEGER, B INTEGER }

violates the principle, whatever the relations' attribute names.
Instinctively it does seem rather odd that a predicates such as:

* on Day:X the shop had noCustomers:Y
* on Roll:A, the dice showed the Number:B

cannot share the same database. Have I interpreted the debate
correctly? Any insights or corrections are, as ever, appreciated -
POOD is certainly thought provoking, and the concept that an update
need not require specifcation of a table name is an interesting one.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Principle of Orthogonal Design
    ... current design is cdt - info about the POOD is actually pretty sparse ... which has not helped my own understanding. ... McGovern posits that: ... Any insights or corrections are, as ever, appreciated - ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Principle of Orthogonal Design
    ... current design is cdt - info about the POOD is actually pretty sparse ... Any insights or corrections are, as ever, appreciated - ... My understanding is that the debate centers around typing. ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
Quantcast