The gist of my article is that I believe it is a flaw to continue to create a Java only object model when the technology exists to create an object model that all programming languages can access.
You should have written an article which showed how the technology you were discussing 'created an object model'. An object model needs to represent the relationships between objects, something which JDO does rather well, and very transparently. You should also have explained how 'behaviour is persisted as an object'.
What got up my nose about your previous article was that you claimed an 'apples to apples' comparison between your SQL:1999 technology and JDO, while not even mentioning the most importanr features of an object-relational technology.