Re: which softeware can create database?
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:50:05 -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:3dcc2530$1_at_news.uia.ac.be...
> >> >>
> >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.
I could not disagree more. It's what gains one tenure in academia--nothing more. The greatest respect goes to those whose ideas prove worthy in spite of resistance in peer review.
> >> >Stop and think back through history to every major fundamental advance
> >> >in human understanding. Now consider the contribution peer review had
> >> >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
> research community.
You start with the word "no" and then proceed to agree with me. That's a little confusing.
> 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.
In this case, the word was defined by Ted Codd. What does the database research community use to refer to a database management system based on relations as suggested by Codd's 1970 paper? And that was conventionally referred to as relational throughout the 1970's and well into the 1980's before SQL had the commercial dominance it has today?
> >> >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.
> And failed. That was not in the peer-reviewed part.
And failed at what? At proving the database research community has easy access to Date's work regardless of peer review? I repeat yet again: Willful ignorance is no excuse. Received on Mon Nov 11 2002 - 19:50:05 CET