Re: which softeware can create database?

From: Jan Hidders <>
Date: 11 Nov 2002 15:49:29 +0100
Message-ID: <3dcfc379$>

Bob Badour wrote:
>"Jan Hidders" <> wrote in message
>> Bob Badour wrote:
>> >"Jan Hidders" <> wrote in message
>> >news:3dcc2530$
>> >>
>> >> 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.

I was talking in the above about Date, not Codd.

>Perhaps you can remind me where Fagin published his work on the higher
>normal forms? And what inspired him to complete that work?

That which inspires all good scientists, curiosity and the will to publish. But I assume you mean the paper by Date and Fagin where Fagin proved a conjecture by Date the Date wasn't able to prove by himself.

>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" ?

It is what gains you the respect of the scientific community. The more you publish that way the more political clout you have. Not that Date doesn't have much respect, his books are often used by these people to teach from and the common opinion is that he usually makes some excellent points, but that is not enough to dictate the use of the term RDBMS.

>> >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

No, we are talking about how the term RDBMS is commonly used in the database research community. The question whether SQL defines the term "relational" is meaningless because words don't define themselves, they are defined by people and how they use them.

>> >BTW, is SIGMOD peer-reviewed ?
>> I presume you mean SIGMOD record? Some parts of it.
>> >
>> Is that all you could find? Here, let me help you a little:
>No, I just grabbed the first one I found.

And failed. That was not in the peer-reviewed part.

>Are you trying to contradict yourself?

No. You have to look more closely. Which one of those was peer-reviewed?

  • Jan Hidders
Received on Mon Nov 11 2002 - 15:49:29 CET

Original text of this message