Re: which softeware can create database?

"Jan Hidders" <hidders_at_REMOVE.THIS.uia.ua.ac.be> wrote in message news:3dcdf5e2$1_at_news.uia.ac.be...
> Bob Badour wrote:
> >"Jan Hidders" <hidders_at_REMOVE.THIS.uia.ua.ac.be> wrote in message
> >news:3dcc2530$1_at_news.uia.ac.be...
> >>
> >> 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?
>
> No, not everything, just a wider acceptance of the specific use of certain
> terms in the scientific community and with that in the database community
at
> large.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall dates like 1970 and 1972 where Codd published in peer-reviewed journals. Perhaps you can remind me where Fagin published his work on the higher normal forms? And what inspired him to complete that work?

What we have now is a large body of peer reviewed work published since then that completely ignores the prior art on this point.

How is that possible if publishing in peer reviewed journals would have created "a wider acceptance of the specific use of certain terms in the scientific community and with that in the database community at large" ?

Peer review is no panacea, and willful ignorance is no excuse.

> >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.
>
> We were not talking about whether Date's views are appreciated in the
> scientific community or not.

No, we were talking about whether SQL defines the term 'relational' as in RDBMS. Those who act as if it does ignore much of the prior work on the topic.

> >Willful ignorance is no excuse.
>
> The scientific community knows Date's views very well.

What?!? Even though he does not publish in peer reviewed journals as often as you would like? Gasp! How can that be?!? ;->

> >BTW, is SIGMOD peer-reviewed ?
>
> I presume you mean SIGMOD record? Some parts of it.
>
> >http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/darwen95third.html
>
> Is that all you could find? Here, let me help you a little:

No, I just grabbed the first one I found.

>

http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/indices/a-tree/d/Date:C=_J=.html

Are you trying to contradict yourself? Received on Mon Nov 11 2002 - 06:11:22 CET