[cap-talk] capability-enabled spatial databases

[Kevin Reid]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 12:22, Kevin Reid wrote:

> On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:41, John Carlson wrote:
>
>> Would a typical spatial extension of SQL w/ SSL/TLS/PKI qualify to
>> be a capability protocol, if it used swiss numbers for point,
>> polygon, object, collection and class information and you couldn't
>> manipulate the database (CRUD) without using a swiss number
>> (specifying a single thing)?
>
> Would whoever it was from 2009-04-17's friam discussion that said that
> capabilites and (relational?) databases have useful but irreconcilable
> properties please expand upon it in this context?


Chip Morningstar writes:

> I think that was me.  I wasn't speaking to the irreconcilability  
> between
> capabilities and relational DBs, so much as between the object  
> oriented view of
> the world and the relational database view of the world, though  
> capabilities
> and the OOP world are closely linked in my thinking.
> The basic issue is that good OOP practice (especially when viewed  
> from a
> capability mindset) relies heavily on strong encapsulation, while the
> relational approach rejects encapsulation utterly.
>
> A good summary of the issues is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-relational_impedance_mismatch
>
> Chip
>

-- 
Kevin Reid                            <http://homepage.mac.com/kpreid/>