I'm still in college and I'm trying my hand at designing my own applications, for practice and also for funsies, but I'm having some big questions.
Currently, I'm attempting to design an application that uses a relational database backend to store records related to a pen-and-paper RPG that a friend and I have been designing. It will need to store characters, weapons, items, etc. Since it's based off of a sci-fi universe, there are guns, etc.
Now, I'm stuck in the conceptual stages here because I'm not sure how I would store some of the weirder to grasp types of information here. Since it's a tabletop RPG, there are dice involved, typically referred to as D4, D6, D10, D20, etc. and a lot of these weapons, for example, have several kinds of attacks each (they're guns, so it's like firing modes, etc.) and a typical attack would be something like "D20 + 20."
Now, I know that I could just store it as a string variable, but I was hoping to design this in such a way that I could actually add some dice-rolling/etc. functionality to it. Is there a simple or effective way of storing a Math.random variable (not the result, mind you, but the actual range number) in a SQL record so that I could just grab it and use it real quick?
For extra context, I was hoping to have one table of the actual weapon templates & stats and another table of just actual instances of those weapons, so I could keep track of ammo in each gun, who owns it, etc.
I'm using Netbeans and a Derby database. Thanks for any help you guys.
As stated above, I don't know why you just wouldn't create a java/C#/any programming language application that can simulate the dice rolls for you. I mean, you could integrate the database into the application to retrieve information. Otherwise just simply make the ability to input information on weapons/Armour into the application in the form of popup dialog boxes (Or something along those lines).
A database is primarily used to store information in a structured way and automatically updates this information as needed. What you are suggesting to do is more dynamic and has nothing to do with storing information and more so with actually playing the game. Not wanting to change your idea about creating it. Just creating an actual application that utilizes a database can be written in a language other than SQL. (And much easier to do it this way as well.)
Your question is very broad, but I would not store a descriptive characteristic like "D20 + 20" in your database only yo parse it out in the app. Instead store that as two or three (depending on what it represents) attributes (columns) in your database, and let the app display it appropriately.
I don't know exactly what you mean by storing "equations" and "RNGs" in your database, but those belong in the application, not the database. You can store inputs or parameters that guide those equations, but not the equations themselves.
Related
Good morning,
This is more of a concept question then anything.
I am looking to design a database and interface that will track changes to the entries (in this case people) and display those changes readily.
(user experience would look something like this)
for user A
Date Category Activity
8/8/14 change position position 1 -> position 2
8/9/14 change department department a -> department b
...
...
the visual experience seem like it would benefit from an E-A-V design, however i am designing the database to be easy to data mine and from my reading, i think that E-A-V is not the right way to go.
does it make sense to duplicate data just to display it?
if not, does anyone have a suggestion of how to query the history table and display? (currently using jquery and php to leverage the db...i suppose i could do something interesting from a coding perspective to get it done)
thank you for your help,
Travis
Creating an efficient operational database environment and a creating an 'easy-to-data mine' environment are two separate (and often opposing) goals.
Others might disagree with me but in my opinion it is best to create your database based on operational readiness (This means using your E-A-V design as mentioned above) and then worry about data transformation later. This may make it inconvenient later to transform the data to allow for easy mining but it will accomplish an incredibly important goal which is to eliminate the possibility for data error.
Once you have a good system in place where you can collect data appropriately, then you can create a warehouse or datamart environment to more conveniently extract that data.
This may sound like a lot of work but from a data integrity perspective, it is much safer than trying to create some system that is designed entirely for reporting. That's my personal opinion at least.
(sorry cannot comment yet)
You have to analyse the data you need to persist.
if you have only a couple of tables, with no relationship, you probably don't need the database.
In this case the database solution probably will be slower(connection/transmission/security overhead ...).
well if it's a few MBs of data, I would keep everything in one table.
You can easily load the whole data set in memory and do what you need to do.
I'm having a problem with my students using multi-valued fields in access and getting confused about normalisation as a result.
Here is what I can make out. Given a 1-to-many relationship, e.g.
Articles Comments
-------- --------
artID{PK} commID{PK}
text text
artID{FK}
Access makes it possible to store this information into what appears to be one table, something like
Articles
--------
artID{PK}
text
comment
+ value
"value" referring to multiple comment values for the comment "column", which access actually stores as a separate table. The specifics of how the values are stored - table, its PK and FK - is completely hidden, but it is possible to query the multi-valued field, e.g. in the example above with the query
INSERT INTO article( [comment].Value )
VALUES ('thank you')
WHERE artID = 1;
But the query doesn't quite reveal the underlying structure of the hidden table implementing the multi-valued field.
Given this (disaster, in my view) - my problem is how to help newcomers to database design and normalisation understand what Access is offering them, why it may not be helpful, and that it is not a reason to ignore the basics of the relational model. More specifically:
Are there better ways, besides queries as above, to reveal the structure behind multi-valued fields?
Are there good examples of where the multi-valued field is not good enough, and shows the advantage of normalising explicitly?
Are there straightforward ways to obtain the multi-select visual output of Access multi-values, but based on separate, explicit tables?
Thanks!
I cannot give you advice in using this feature, because I never used it; however, I can give you reasons not to use it.
I want to have full control on what I'm doing. This is not the case for multi-valued fields, therefore I don't use them.
This feature is not expandable. What if you want to add a date field to your comments, for instance?
It is sometimes necessary to upsize an Access (backend) database to a "big" database (SQL Server, Oracle). These Databases don't offer such a feature. It is often the customer who decides which database has to be used. Recently I had to migrate an Access application (frontend) using an Oracle backend to a SQL-Server backend because my client decided to drop his Oracle server. Therefore it is a good idea to restrict yourself to use only common features.
For common tasks like editing lookup tables I created generic forms. My existing solutions will not work with multi-valued fields.
I have a (self-made) tool that synchronizes changes in the structure of the database on my developer’s site with the database on the client’s site. This tool cannot deal with multi-valued fields.
I have tools for the security management that can grant SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE rights on tables or revoke them. Again, the management tool does not work with multi-valued fields.
Having a separate table for the comments allows you to quickly inspect all the comments (by opening the table). You cannot do this with multi-valued fields.
You will not see the 1 to n relation between the articles and the comments in a database diagram.
With a separate table you can choose whether you want to cascade deletes to the details table or not. If you don't, you will not be able to delete an article as long as there are comments attached to it. This can be desirable, if you want to protect the comments from being deleted inadvertently.
It is important to realize the difference between physical and logical relationships. Today the whole internet and web services (SOAP) quite much realizes on a data format that is multi-value in nature.
When you represent multi-value data with a relational database (such as Access), then behind the scenes you are using a traditional (and legitimate) relation. I cannot stress that as such, then the use of multi-value columns in Access is in fact a LEGITIMATE relational model.
The fact that table is not exposed does not negate this issue. In fact, if you represent an invoice (master record, and repeating details) as a XML data cube, then we see two things:
1) you can build and represent that invoice with a relational database like Access
2) such a relational data model that is normalized can ALSO be represented as a SINGLE xml string.
3) deleting the XML record (or string) means that cascade delete of the child rows (invoice details) MUST occur.
So while it is true that Multi-Value fields been added to Access to deal with SharePoint, it is MOST important to realize that such data can be mapped to a relational database (if you could not do this, then Access could not consume that XML data using relational database tables as ACCESS CURRENTLY DOES RIGHT NOW).
And with the web such as XML, and SharePoint then the need to consume and manage and utilize such data is not only widespread, but is in fact a basic staple of the internet.
As more and more data becomes of a complex nature, we find the requirement for multi-value data exploding in use. Anyone who used that so called "fad" the internet is thus relying and using data that is in fact VERY OFTEN XML and is multi-value (complex) in nature.
As long as the logical (not physical) relational data model is kept, then use of multi-value columns to represent such data is possible and this is exactly what Access is doing (it is mapping the relational data model to a complex model). Note that the complex (xml) data model does NOT necessary have to be relational in nature. However, if you ARE going to map such data to Access then the complex multi-value model MUST CONFORM TO A RELATIONAL data model.
This is EXACTLY what is occurring in Access.
The fact that such a correct and legitimate math relational model is not exposed is of little issue here. Are we to suggest that because Excel does not expose the binary codes used then users will never learn about computers? Or perhaps we all must program in assembler so we all correctly learn how computers works.
At the end of the day, who cares and why does this matter? The fact that people drive automatic cars today does not toss out the concept that they are using different gears to operate that car. The idea that we shut down all of society because someone is going to drive an automatic car or in this case use complex data would be galactic stupid on our part.
So keep in mind that extensions to SQL do exist in Access to query the multi-value data, but as well pointed out here those underlying tables are not exposed. However, as noted, exposing such tables would STILL REQUIRE one to not change or mess with cascade delete since that feature is required TO MAINTAIN A INTERSECTION OF FEATURES and a CORRECT MATH relational model between the complex data model (xml) and that of using two related tables to represent such data.
In other words, you can use related tables to represent the complex data model IF YOU REMOVE the ability of users to play with the referential integrity options. The RI options MUST remain as set in those hidden tables else such data will not be able to make the trip BACK to the XML or complex data model of which it was consumed from.
As noted, in regards to users being taught how gasoline reacts with oxygen for that of learning to drive a car, or using a word processor and being forced to learn a relational model and expose the underlying tables makes little sense here.
However, the points made here in regards to such tables being exposed are legitimate concerns.
The REAL problem is SQL server and Oracle etc. cannot consume or represent that complex data WHILE ACCESS CAN CONSUME such data.
As noted, the complex data ship has LONG ago sailed! XML, soap, and the basic technologies of the internet are based on this complex data model.
In effect, SQL server, Oracle and most databases cannot that consume this multi-value data represent it without users having to create and model such data in a relational fashion is a BIG shortcoming of SQL server etc.
Access stands alone in this ability to consume this data.
So, for anyone who used a smartphone, iPad or the web, you are using basic technologies that are built around using complex data, something that Access now allows.
It is likely that the rest of the industry will have to follow suit given that more and more data is complex in nature. If the database industry does not change, then the mainstream traditional relational database system will NOT be the resting place of such data.
A trend away from storing data in related tables is occurring at a rapid pace right now and products like SharePoint, or even Google docs is proof of this concept. So Access is only reacting to market pressures and it is likely that other database vendors will have to follow suit or simply give up on being part of the "fad" called the internet.
XML and complex data structures are STAPLE and fact of our industry right now – this is not an issue we all should run away from, but in fact embrace.
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
kallal#msn.com
The technical discussion is interesting. I think the real problem lies in student understanding. Because it is available in Access students will use it, and initially it will probably provide a simple solution to some design problems. The negatives will occur later when they try and use the data. Maybe a simple example demonstrating the problems would persuade some students to avoid using multi-valued fields ? Maybe an example of storing the data in another, more usable format would help ?
Good luck !
Peter Bullard
MS Access does a great job of simplifying database management and abstracting out a lot of complexity. This however makes the learning of dbms concepts a bit difficult. Have you tried using other 'standard' dbms tools like MySQL (or even sqlite). From a learning perspective they may be better.
I know this post is old. But, it's not quite the same as every other post I've seen on this topic. This one has someone making a good case for using Multi Valued Fields...
As someone who is trying who is still trying very hard to get their head around Access, I find the discussion for and against using the Multi Valued Fields incredibly frustrating.
I'm trying to sort through it all, but if everyone is so against them, what is an alternative method? It seems that in every search result I find everyone is either telling you how to use Multi Valued Fields and Controls or telling you how horrible and what a mistake they are. Many people refer to an alternative to them, but nobody says "Here's an example". I'm here to learn about these things. And while I know that this is a simpler concept for a lot of people in these forums, I could really use some examples to take a look at.
I'm at a point where I have to decide which way to go. It would be wonderful to compare examples of using Multi Valued Fields and alternatives and using a control to select multiple values.
Or am I wrong and the functionality of a combobox where you can select multiple items is only available through Access?
I want to address the last of your questions first. There is a way of providing a visual presentation of a parent child relationship. It's called subforms. If you get help about subforms in Access, it will explain the concept.
I have used subforms in a project where I wanted to display the transaction header in a form and the transaction details in a subform. There is nothing to hinder this construct even when the data is stored in two normalized tables.
Of course, this affects the screen, not the database. That's the whole point. Normalization is relevant to storage and retrieval, not to other uses of data.
I have a db model like this:
tb_Computer (N - N) tb_Computer_Peripheral (N - 1) tb_Peripheral
Each computer has N peripherals. But each peripheral is different in nature, and will have different fields. A keyboard will have model, language, etc, and a network card has specification about speed and such.
But I don't think it's viable to create as many tables as there are peripherals. Because one day someone will come up with a very specific peripheral and I don't want him to be unable to add it just because it is not a keyboard neither a network card.
Is it a bad practice to create a field data inside tb_Peripheral which contains JSON data about a specific peripheral?
I could even create a tb_PeripheralType with specific information about which data a specific type of peripheral has.
I read about this in many places and found everywhere that this is a bad practice, but I can't think of any other way to implement this the way I want, completely dynamic.
What is the best way to achieve what I want? Is the current model wrong? What would you do ?
It's not a question of "good practices" or "bad practices". Making things completely dynamic has an upside and a downside. You have outlined the upside fairly well.
The downside of a completely dynamic design is that the process of turning the data into useful information is not nearly as routine as it is with a database that pins down the semantics of the data within the scope of the design.
Can you build a report and a report generating process that will adapt itself to the new structure of the data when you begin to add data about a new kind of peripheral? If you end up stuck with doing maintenance on the application when requirements change, what have you gained by making the database design completely dynamic?
PS: If the changes to the database design consist only of adding new tables, the "ripple effect" on your existing applications will be negligible.
I can think of four options.
The first is to create a table peripherals that would have all the information you could want about peripherals. This would have NULLs in the columns where the field is not appropriate to the type. When a new peripheral is added, you would have to add the descriptive columns.
The second is to create a separate table for each peripheral.
The third is to encode the information in something like JSON.
The fourth is to store the data as pairs. So each peripheral would have many different rows.
There are also hybrids for these approaches. For instance, you could store common fields in a single table (ala (1)) and then have key value pairs for other values.
The question is how this information is going to be used. I do most of my work directly in SQL, so the worst option for me is (3). I don't want to parse strange information formats to get something potentially useful to a SQL query.
Option (4) is the most flexible, but it also requires more work to get a complete picture of all the possible attributes.
If I were starting from scratch, and I had a pretty good idea of what fields I wanted, then I would start with (1), a single table for peripherals. If I had requirements where peripherals and attributes would be changing fairly regularly, then I would seriously consider (4). If the tables are only being used by applications, then I might consider (3), but I would probably reject it anyway.
Only one question to answer when you do this sort of design. JSON, a serialised object, xml, or heaven forbid a csv, doesn't really matter.
Do you want to consume them outside of the API that knows the structure?
If you want to say use sql to get all peripherals of type keyboard with a number of keys property >= 102 say.
If you do, it gets messy, much messier than extra tables.
No different to say having a table of pdfs or docs and trying to find all the ones which have more than 10 pages.
Gets even funnier if you want to version the content as your application evolves.
Have a look at a Nosql back end, it's designed for stuff like this, a relational database is not.
For a hobby project I am building an application to keep track of my money. Register everything that comes in and goes out. I am using sqlite as a database backend.
I have two data access models in mind.
Creating one master object as a sort of database connector, which contains methods which execute the queries and provide the required sets of data as a list of objects
Have objects who need data execute the queries themselves
Which one of these is 'the best' and why? Or are there different, better models out there?
The latter option is better. In the first option, you would end up having to touch your universal data access object for just about any update to the code that wasn't purely a change in display logic. If you have different data access objects, then you will have much more testable, maintainable code.
I suggest you read up a bit on the model-view-controller paradigm. The wikipedia article on it is a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model%E2%80%93view%E2%80%93controller.
Also, you didn't say which language/platform you were coding in, but most platforms have numerous options for auto-generating a starting point your data access classes from your database. You may find something like that useful.
Much of a muchness really, the thing to avoid is having the "same" sql sprinkled all over your code base.
The key point is. You've just added a new column to Table1. When you do Find In Files "Table1", how many hits are you going to get and where.
If you use one class and there's a lot of db operations, it's going to get very messy very quickly, but if you have one interface (say IModel) with one implementation, you can swap backends very easily.
So how many db operations, and how likely is it you will move away from SqlLite.
So far there've been several questions regarding this, and they've all come down to the same answer: one table for the language-neutral data, 1-* to a table with the translations and an indexed language ID field.
This has several problems:
Twice as much CRUD.
Need for Ajax CRUD if you want a decently friendly web UI.
More than twice the validation -- you need to ensure that the relationship is 1-* rather than 0-*.
Collation differences between languages isn't accommodated.
Queries require joins.
If you want slugs in multiple languages, oh boy.
A lot of database people have worked on all sorts of theoretical and practical problems, but surprisingly few people work on this one.
I think what we need ultimately is:
A field type that'll store multiple versions of strings
Multiple indices for each such field, one for each language or variation, with the option to specify the correct collation mode
A standard ORM object for this crazy thing
UI elements
Overkill? Sure, maybe, but the whole problem is a real nightmare as it is. And it's not exactly an uncommon scenario.
We gotta try to convince server vendors to work on this.
Edit: By the way, this is my first time using the community wiki; hopefully I'm doing it right.
Edit 2: Something about my wording seems to have made people think that I'm attacking the very concept of DBMS. I'm not; I'm simply saying that built-in support for localization is a much-needed feature.
I probably shouldn't have mentioned performance; it's of course completely negligible most of the time. The focus of my concern is on the fact that this really stifles productivity.
I'll provide an example. Suppose I have a very trivial table for a decidedly trivial store:
Products (id, price, description, name, slug)
In EF/MVC, I'd throw this in the ORM designer, maybe encapsulate it in a repository, build a Products controller, and have actions for Index, Details, Create, Update, Edit and Delete. To identify a product in any of the items, I'd simply do a WHERE(slug = #slug). I'd make a view model for the create/edit actions, design the form control, and wire it up straight to the repository. Done and done. To access the details for a product, the user would go to /products/details/product-slug.
But then since the rest of the website is bilingual, I decide to change the products table accordingly.
Products (id, price)
ProductsText (productId, language, description, name, slug)
Hey, that's not so bad. Yeah, not yet. Then you write your relationships and your constraints, and then you write you write out all your properties in the view-model, and then you make a complete CRUD controller for the ProductsText data or use jQuery/Ajax to add create/update/edit buttons on your Products controller, and then you add validation logic to make sure the user enters at least the primary language, and then when you want to read data for the end-user pages you write another query to take join ProductsText.slug and ProductsText.language with Products... I probably missed something, but you get the idea.
The complexity of the program just explodes with boilerplate code once you have localization involved.
Of course, I don't expect the problem to be solved completely, and it's obviously just as much a UI problem as it is a database problem. But there's just so much that could be done to make all this easier. A "multistring" field type might be a really good start.
Edit 3: Anyone ever hear of SQL Server Modeling Services? It has some localization tools in it that could be a step in the right direction. Still CTP though.
-- Simulate the French locale with the SET LANGUAGE statement.
SET LANGUAGE French
select Id, CountryName,
[System.Globalization].[SessionsString](CountryName, 1) as CountryNameString
from [Location].[CountriesTable]
What is a localized database field?
Typically in applications we've worked in, the UI is localized. This is accomplished using a database, and we put all the translations (and potentially the master phrases) in the table with a locale-code and phraseid being the primary key. This is fairly straightforward, requires a single reusable set of stored procs and has good performance and the usage is well-understood. We often allow translation on the fly so that the app interface includes a translation feature where corrections can be made and other users will see them live - either rich forms applications or web forms applications (depending on caching - which is another key feature of UI localization)
As far as querying requiring joins - that's just a fact of life in a normalized relational database, and performance there is usually managed with a good normalized design and proper indexing.
In other "data", it has made little sense to localize except under direction of the application requirements. For instance, even though you may offer a product in multiple countries, the SKU and distributor may be different. This level of localization is very application specific and we often dealt with it as a separate database and there really isn't anything tying those individually country database together - many products were not available although there may have been equivalent products in the other countries.
If you are selling the same products around the world, then you kind of fall into the original scenario in a kind of multi-lingual CMS. This requires significant work besides the low-level database. For instance, if someone corrects the default product description, what flags the translators that the translations need to also be corrected? These questions are non-trivial. Although I can see where database vendors could assist with features, these are intrinsic difficulties of application requirements and design and not necessarily something the database can add features which will universally solve.
The collation issue is indeed a little awkward. Typically data is stored in nvarchar and you would not know the collation you wanted for retrieval at the time you wrote the stored proc, since the locale would be a parameter. This only affects collections retrieved which need to be ordered by content, not usually natural key and certainly not retrieval by key - it's not a large problem, but is one which cannot easily be handled without dynamic SQL (casting using the preferred collation from a table depending upon the location passed in, if you mix data from different locales, you would have to decide if you want to sort by locale first and then it may be difficult to pick a collation which might work properly within all locales in the same result set). You are probably going to want to use a Windows collation with such a wide variety of data.
Similarly with ORMs, we typically treated the composite unique key of locale/phraseid as the key to retrieve objects (we typically also had a surrogate identity primary key) - I know that traditional ORMs don't necessarily like this departure from retrieval by a meaningless surrogate key.
I've encountered all of these issues for localized CRM-style web sites. Not fun to design and optimize, but it can be done. My 2¢ worth:
1. Twice as much CRUD.
This depends on how your CRUD is designed. Any of my stored procedures or functions that can retrieve a possibly-localized field take a locale/culture code parameter. All of these fields are also NVARCHAR to avoid encoding issues.
2. Need for Ajax CRUD if you want a decently friendly web UI.
I suppose so, but this is application-dependent. Should defer to the "internal" CRUD (DRY principle).
3. More than twice the validation -- you need to ensure that the relationship is 1-* rather than 0-*.
This also assumes that all content is required in all supported locales, instead of using a fallback mechanism. For example, Microsoft's MSDN content is available in multiple locales, but some is in only one (generally this is US English, the "neutral" locale for Microsoft).
For a CRM-style system, any locale can be used for the initial content as long as the fallback uses that if the neutral content is not available.
4. Collation differences between languages isn't accommodated.
I find that it is easier to put all collation support at the UI/reporting layer. Multilingual-aware tables with collation/locale specified on a row-by-row basis would be a very nice-to-have feature but I wouldn't like to wait for it to become available...
5. Queries require joins.
Yes, definitely makes the query a bit more complicated :-) but no real way around that. Can get even more complicated if locale fallback is included (a "locale specificity" ranking field helps here).
6. If you want slugs in multiple languages, oh boy.
This is the reason that the .NET replacement parameters in the format string were designed to be indexed, not positional (printf(), etc. are positional). An English format may need replacements in 1, 2, 3 order, while the German equivalent uses 3, 1, 2.
To make life easier for localizers, whenever I create a .NET resource bundle I document the parameters including index, data type (including minimum and/or maximum string lengths), and a contextual description - context is important for determining text gender in some locales.
Plurality may also require multiple related resources as some locales need more than just "single" and "plural" (e.g. "0 files", "1 file", "2 files").
The same rules must apply to any localizable column in the database.
Well the answers are not that helpfull so far. I had the same problem on various projects I was doing in the past. And there was never a shortcut nor a solution out of the box that helpped me to solve this problem in a easy way. But your approach is going into the right direction and with a little work on your Data Access Layer you can actualy abstract all the burden that is caused by this requirement.
So for Metadata like Types, Categories, Countries etc. performance is not an issue since the whole stuff can be cached. For freetext entries it is a different story. You most probably can't cache them and they tend to be quite long.
You might already know those pages:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/LocalizedSamplePart2.aspx
http://www.sisulizer.com/online-help/DatabaseLocalization.shtml
Best-practices for localizing a SQL Server (2005/2008) database
In my experience I haven't commonly run into the problem where the data stored in the database has many language-dependent versions of the same text. Typically a developed application will have many language files for all the text that's more or less statically built into the application. Then we see database data for text users enter. While an application may be used by users with many different languages, the situation where users type the same text in multiple languages is not so common. Typically uses of an application will show the UI in their language and then enter and view data in their language.
For example, users of our application in the US vs in Netherlands or Saudi Arabia would see the UI in the language of their choice, but for any given installation, the data they enter will consistently be in their native language.
Obviously this doesn't apply to all cases. CRMs are an example where you would have the same text with multiple translations, like Wikipedia, but I think what I described above is the more common scenario.
"A lot of database people have worked on all sorts of theoretical and practical problems, but surprisingly few people work on this one."
That's because there is nothing to work on, from a theoretical perspective, in your example. The so-called "problems" you mention are, all of them, nothing more than a direct consequence of the fact that you are managing more data.
"Twice as much CRUD."
And why is that a problem ? I know of at least a few systems I built that had a lot more of that than your example.
"Need for Ajax CRUD if you want a decently friendly web UI."
Is that really so ? I don't know, but at any rate how data is handled in the presentation layer, is no concern of the DBMS, and if the programmer thinks it is too difficult/cumbersome, then don't blame the DBMS for that.
More than twice the validation -- you need to ensure that the relationship is 1-* rather than 0-*.
And why is that a problem ? If more business rules are stated, more validation is required.
"Collation differences between languages isn't accommodated."
How so ? What is the sense of collating English text with French ? Of English text with Ukrainian or Russian or Chinese ? Or did you mean something else ?
"Queries require joins."
And why is that a problem ?
"If you want slugs in multiple languages, oh boy."
In what context ? For what purpose ?
SELECT language,nllabel FROM ...
NATURAL JOIN (SELECT 'EN' as language UNION SELECT 'FR' as language)
Oh but wait, I forgot ... JOINs are also a problem.
"and it's obviously just as much a UI problem as it is a database problem."
I disagree that it is. When looking at your problem from a database angle, there are two things that might possibly be a small beginning of a solution :
the possibility to do full view updating (both through JOIN and through GROUP, for your case).
the possibility to have attributes of type 'table' inside database tables. You could then have the entire set of applicable localized names-stuff as a sinle attribute in a single row for your product/...
As for full view updating : don't hold your breath. You'll suffocate long before it has arrived.
As for nested tables : they might already exist, if anyone has them Oracle will, I don't really know, but I'm not really confident that this will really make life easier on the UI side of things.
Oh, and BTW : SQL is nowhere near "theoretically pure".