4 ms·
The Codd 1971 stuff on Wikipedia looks like a mess, and I think the original is propbably a bit crufty too (though I don't want to disrespect the old masters, S
by Ericson2314 5y ago
The Codd 1971 stuff on Wikipedia looks like a mess, and I think the original is propbably a bit crufty too (though I don't want to disrespect the old masters, SQL was a high water mark of business thinking about computing in many ways).
I would follow the citations of https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/lens+%28in+computer+science%29 https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/lens+%28in+computer+science%29 instead. Whatever Spivack can say about this stuff I think is going to be much more worth your while.
Looking at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03501.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03501.pdf now.
- gyam 5y agoThanks for these!
- Ericson2314 5y agoI feel bad as this stuff is certainly much harder. But yes I do think it's important to try to understand databases in a modern setting and not some old set theoretic cludge that's hard to relate to anything else. Good luck!
- mokaman 5y agoThere is a book by c.j date that goes into these . It is very theory based and heavily criticises people for confusing relation and table . Book is Database Design and Relational Theory: Normal Forms and All That Jazz