There's nothing wrong with relational databases. There's something deeply wrong with how developers build relational databases. You can build databases in a way that meshes very cleanly with how humans think; people just don't. When a database developer makes an Asset table and a Building table and a Vehicle table, he's explicitly saying that Assets are definitely not Buildings and Vehicles are definitely not Assets and Buildings are definitely not Vehicles. That's the part that's completely foreign to how humans think: in reality, things are kinda like other things. No, Table Inheritance does not solve this problem (does it solve the problem in an OO language? No!). Again: you could build relational databases that mesh with how humans think, you just don't.
Also underlying your comment is this idea:
> Anything foreign to how humans think cannot help achieve intelligence.
Or:
> Human intelligence is the only possible kind of intelligence.
Bullshit. You could just have easily written off fixed-wing aircraft by saying they're completely foreign to how birds fly. It's silly to think that our particular form of intelligence is the only possible form of intelligence.
If you can never assume that any 2 concepts are distinct from each other, how do you model your database? I'd be curious how you would model the example you stated as a relational database that mimics how humans think
Also underlying your comment is this idea:
> Anything foreign to how humans think cannot help achieve intelligence.
Or:
> Human intelligence is the only possible kind of intelligence.
Bullshit. You could just have easily written off fixed-wing aircraft by saying they're completely foreign to how birds fly. It's silly to think that our particular form of intelligence is the only possible form of intelligence.