Austin Ziegler wrote:
>> OODB and SQLDB seem to map 1-to-1. Instead of rows in tables you have
>> objects in a graph. Instead of a foreign key you have a direct pointer
>> to an object. Instead of an index on a foreign key (Foo#bar) you keep a
>> list of references (Bar#foo[]) in the foreign object.
> 
> There's no theory behind OODBs, much less relational theory. OODBs are
> ways to serialize your object graph. The concepts between OODB and
> SQLDB barely map at all, except that they both store data; the
> concepts between OODB and relational theory are so far apart as to not
> even be on the same planet.

I see that you barely skimmed over my post and failed to answer any of 
the 3 ways in which I showed how OODBs and SQLDBs are similar. Instead 
you answered with something that boils down to your usual "OODBs are 
evil" mantra. Proof by repeated assertion works in politics, not 
science. (although I'm just a humble engineer; what do I know about 
lofty "science", heh?)

> You don't normalize data in object databases; there's no reason to do
> so. You structure things according to your application's object model
> -- and pray to Codd that you never need to access the data in a
> different way than your object model.

How is a class not normalized? How are instances of a class different 
than rows of a table?

> Object graphs are inherently hierarchical, not relational.

Er... maybe there's a definition of "hierarchical" that I haven't heard 
about. I mean, hierarchical trees are a form of graph but the opposite 
is just not true. I suspect you'll be enlightened even by what's on 
Wikipedia, flawed as it is. :-P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_%28data_structure%29

Daniel DeLorme