Re: database market share 2003

"Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message news:<capkk6$1v4a$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com>...
> "Serge Rielau" <srielau_at_ca.eye-be-em.com> wrote in message
> news:capg0m$oio$1_at_hanover.torolab.ibm.com...
> > Noons wrote:
> > > Given that it is the ONLY commercial RDBMS out there that follows
> > > most of the relational db 12 rules, it probably deserves to be better
> > > represented in education institutions.
> > "Relational db 12 rules"? Care to elaborate?
> > At the risk of looking stupid: I draw a blank here.
> > I only know of normal forms, relational algebra and SQL :-(
>
> Stuipid? No, but one can always know more.
>
> Here is Chris Date's take on "different relational models" where the 12
> rules are mentioned in passing.
>
> http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/622839.htm

That's a very good article. Given the thrust and tone of the article, I found it quite entertaining that the numerous links to his book in the article give "We're sorry, the page you are looking for does not exists.[SIC]"

>
>
> More interestingly than those 12 rules however, would be too see which
> current DBMS most closely resembles say Data & Darwen's proposals for a
> clean relational database system.

I think putting down a database for having non-relational extensions is silly. It's like saying a sports car isn't any good because it has a quality radio. But rating which R attributes they support could be very informative.

>
> Regards
> Paul Vernon
> Business Intelligence, IBM Global Services

Business Intelligence... dare I say it? OK, I will. That's an oxymoron.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://stuff.goduck.net/links/aussie_slang.html