Re: which softeware can create database?
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:38:55 -0500
"Jan Hidders" <hidders_at_REMOVE.THIS.uia.ua.ac.be> wrote in message
> Bob Badour wrote:
> >"Jan Hidders" <hidders_at_REMOVE.THIS.uia.ua.ac.be> wrote in message
> >> Bob Badour wrote:
> >> >"Jan Hidders" <hidders_at_REMOVE.THIS.uia.ua.ac.be> wrote in message
> >> >news:3dc912f4$1_at_news.uia.ac.be...
> >> >> 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
> >> >> >without first learning what that meaning is, the transmitter
> >> >> >noise at the source and communication will only degrade from that
> >> >>
> >> >> What makes you think that the term RDBMS has "a precise well-defined
> >> >> meaning with a longstanding history of convention"?
> >> >
> >> >http://www.acm.org/classics/nov95/
> >> So you got a history, now all you have to show is the convention. :-)
> These lists are meaningless unless you show that in many of these articles
> these people use the term RDBMS as Date would like them to. Have you
> actually ever been to conferences like VLDB or SIGMOD? I have. They don't.
As I said previously, a large body of work has since developed that ignores the prior art. Is that good science? I think not.
You may contradict my point at any time by simply showing that any of the papers referenced above (peer reviewed or otherwise) use the the term relational to mean something other than Codd's original use back in 1970. Since you have not, I conclude that you cannot--I do not find this surprising due to the longstanding history of convention.
> -- Jan Hidders
Received on Mon Nov 11 2002 - 18:38:55 CET