Re: which softeware can create database?

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_golden.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:41:46 -0500
Message-ID: <6vlz9.145$e54.78015601_at_radon.golden.net>


"Jan Hidders" <hidders_at_REMOVE.THIS.uia.ua.ac.be> wrote in message news:3dcc2530$1_at_news.uia.ac.be...
> Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote:
> >Jan Hidders wrote:
> >
> >> Bob Badour wrote:
> >>
> >>> If a transmitter throws a symbol around in a forum where the symbol
> >>> has a precise well-defined meaning with a longstanding history of
> >>> convention without first learning what that meaning is, the
> >>> transmitter contributes noise at the source and communication will
> >>> only degrade from that point.
> >>
> >> What makes you think that the term RDBMS has "a precise well-defined
> >> meaning with a longstanding history of convention"?
> >
> > Lots of articles and books by the "founding fathers" of the field,
> >starting with EF Codd and now continuing with CJ Date et alli.
>
> That's not enough to make it a convention. What you should look at is how
> the term is used in the database research community (VLDB, SIGMOD, ICDT,
> DBPL, et cetera) and by the people who actually implement databases, and
> then the picture changes quite dramatically. Note that I'm not saying that
> this is a good thing, on the contrary, but how you and I feel about the
> situation is simply irrelevant here. Perhaps if Chris Date had taken some
> more trouble to actually publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals the
> situation might have been better.

Why? Would the peer-review fairy have waved a magic wand and made everything better?

Stop and think back through history to every major fundamental advance in human understanding. Now consider the contribution peer review had to each of them.

Willful ignorance is no excuse.

BTW, is SIGMOD peer-reviewed ?
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/darwen95third.html Received on Sun Nov 10 2002 - 05:41:46 CET

Original text of this message