NoSQL Movement?

[George Neuner]

On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:51:21 +0200, Juan Pedro Bolivar Puente
<magnicida at gmail.com> wrote:

>On 04/03/10 16:21, ccc31807 wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 4:55 pm, toby <t... at telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>>>>  where you have to store data and
>>>
>>> "relational data"
>> 
>> Data is neither relational nor unrelational. Data is data.
>> Relationships are an artifact, something we impose on the data.
>> Relations are for human convenience, not something inherent in the
>> data itself.
>> 
>
>No, relations are data. "Data is data" says nothing. Data is
>information. Actually, all data are relations: relating /values/ to
>/properties/ of /entities/. Relations as understood by the "relational
>model" is nothing else but assuming that properties and entities are
>first class values of the data system and the can also be related.

Well ... sort of.  Information is not data but rather the
understanding of something represented by the data.  The term
"information overload" is counter-intuitive ... it really means an
excess of data for which there is little understanding.

Similarly, at the level to which you are referring, a relation is not
data but simply a theoretical construct.  At this level testable
properties or instances of the relation are data, but the relation
itself is not.  The relation may be data at a higher level.

George