Re: SQL1999-standard makes no reference to term "relational" - why?

Lauri Pietarinen wrote:
> Could one take that to mean that one cannot make
> any statements of how "relational" a DBMS-product is
> by how well it conforms to the SQL-standard (or parts of it)?

        Yes, because SQL contradicts several relational model prescriptions and proscriptions.

> What does it mean to say that a DBMS-product is relational?

        That it conforms to the relational model... see Codd's 12 rules, which are obsolete but still useful, and Date's works.

        More specifically, it should be about relations, not tables; and about domains, not simple data types. But these are only some from several conflicting points.

-- 
  _
/ \ Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra        +41 (21) 216 15 93
\ / http://homepage.mac.com./leandrod/        fax +41 (21) 216 19 04
  X  http://tutoriald.sourceforge.net./      Orange Communications CH
/ \ Campanha fita ASCII, contra correio HTML      +41 (21) 644 23 01