Re: which softeware can create database?
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:09:39 -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: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.
> >> 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.
> >> 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
> >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
> 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.
> >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
> certain exact way.
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.
> -- Jan Hidders
> Received on Mon Nov 11 2002 - 20:09:39 CET