Well, that's what I'm waiting to read about: I'm not arguing for or against the position...just thrilled that I don't have to banish "relational" from my vocabulary, quite yet anyway. :)

Plus, just to be argumentative, some things of course don't translate well at all...even among languages in the same family. So, it could be that our idea is it's a close fit...and we mistake that for a "good" fit.

Like the project I'm working on right now, I don't know at all that I'd approach the data design like that application design at all...And one of my dissatisfactions as a developer is that my applications too much reflect the data model. While the data model is good, it doesn't at all make a good user presentation. That's the key attraction to OO, IMHO.

And, when I as I'm learning about use-case models, I find that I could have two very different application designs for the same data. So, data modeling has to be different from OOSD in some way just because--I think--your data model has to be totally indifferent to the user: beholden only to it's own integrity, if you will.

Does that make any sense? Comments, flames, etc welcome. :)

>No, meaning that there really is not that much disparity between OOAD and relational design. Kind of in the same manner that one can say something in Spanish and translate it to Portuguese, capturing almost exactly the same message.