Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: which softeware can create database?

Re: which softeware can create database?

From: Jan Hidders <hidders_at_REMOVE.THIS.uia.ua.ac.be>
Date: 11 Nov 2002 19:48:44 +0100
Message-ID: <3dcffb8c$1@news.uia.ac.be>


Bob Badour wrote:
>"Jan Hidders" <hidders_at_REMOVE.THIS.uia.ua.ac.be> wrote in message
>news:3dcfbd6a$1_at_news.uia.ac.be...
>> Bob Badour wrote:
>> >
>> >"Jan Hidders" <hidders_at_REMOVE.THIS.uia.ua.ac.be> wrote in message
>> >news:3dcdf7ac$1_at_news.uia.ac.be...
>> >> Bob Badour wrote:
>> >> >"Jan Hidders" <hidders_at_REMOVE.THIS.uia.ua.ac.be> wrote in message
>> >> >news:3dc912f4$1_at_news.uia.ac.be...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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. :-)
>>
>>http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/
>>~ley/db/indices/a-tree/d/Date:C=_J=.html
>>
>>http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~
>>ley/db/indices/a-tree/f/Fagin:Ronald.html
>>
>>http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~
>>ley/db/indices/a-tree/g/Goodman:Nathan.html
>>
>>http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~
>>ley/db/indices/a-tree/b/Bernstein:Philip_A=.html
>>
>> 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.

If you think they ignored Codd's work then I can only conclude that you are extremely ignorant of the existing research literature. Besides, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that most papers used the term RDMBS in another way than Date wants, and if that is so then there is no longstanding history of convention.

>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.

Of course not. Only a few papers using the term in a sloppy way would not show that there is not a longstanding history of convention of using it in a certain exact way.

Received on Mon Nov 11 2002 - 12:48:44 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US