Re: tree model data

"Alan Gutierrez" wrote in message
news:K5Z1a.22912$tQ1.1586636_at_news2.east.cox.net...
> Daniel Dudley wrote:
>
> > "--CELKO--" wrote in message
> > news:c0d87ec0.0302101515.179077ef_at_posting.google.com...
> >> >> Are all these questions about trees for real?
> >> Or is Mr Celko just trying to plug his book? <<
> >>
> >> Yes. Yes. :)
> >
> > I trust the contents of your book will be far less
> > ambiguous than your answer, Joe. ;-)
> >
> > BTW, the same questions occurred to me too. Being a very
> > anti-spam chap, I'd advise authors not to *continually*
> > spam their (upcoming) publications in newsgroups. An
> > announcement of publication in appropriate NGs is generally
> > acceptable to the NG communities.
>
> For the record, I was only joking when I suggested that all
> tree questions may not be for real.

I guess you haven't heard about smileys, Alan. Not that that would have influenced me, of course. :-)

> They are frequently asked
> questions because storing heirarchical data in a relational
> model is an a common task with no obvious solutions.

Yes, they are FAQs, and as such should be entries in the NG's FAQ, where answers -- with or without references to the literature -- may be viewed. Constant repetition of "standard" answers to frequent questions is tiresome or, at its worse, a bore. Not to mention a waste of bandwidth.

> BTW, if an author is providing an answer to a a question in
> a public newsgroup, it is not spam to mention their book as
> the source of that answer. In this situation the book mention
> is solicited and on-topic.

Yes, I can agree with that -- subject to my other comments.

> I would advise authors to take
> advantage of the marketing opportunity of
> Usenet by providing valuable assistance to people in return
> of a brief and on-topic mention of their text.

Hmm, existing literature, perhaps, but with the reservation that the topic cannot be found in the NGs FAQ. Constantly referring to (as yet) unpublished texts is ill-advised; the book may not even be published (for a number of reasons, not least because another author has "beat the gun", making it uneconomical for the publisher to proceed). IMHO (FWIW).

Cheers,
Daniel Received on Tue Feb 11 2003 - 04:41:24 CET