Re: which softeware can create database?

"Jan Hidders" <hidders_at_REMOVE.THIS.uia.ua.ac.be> wrote in message news:3dcffb8c$1_at_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

>

Perhaps I missed the start of the thread, but I think you assume too much. I don't recall anyone demanding that anyone use RDBMS to mean anything other than a database management system based on relations as introduced to the database research community back in Codd's 1970 paper. I seem to recall this thread started because someone chastised another for criticizing RDBMS for problems caused by the non-relational aspects of SQL.

"Relation" has a precise meaning in this context and how an SQL table or view differs from a relation has great significance in this context. I find your insistence that criticisms of the relational model are valid--even when founded on the non-relational properties of SQL--intellectually perverse.

>