Probably, but, Coke can't sue you for calling a soda a coke, either.
Really, the term relational no longer belongs to the theoretical
community, it belongs to the marketing community. Continually
correcting people only reminds them just how much you've lost control
of the word. If it were not about control, then you wouldn't correct
people. If I want to use relational to describe a behavior that the
common masses identify with in a "relational database", I would
probably be more correct than those that say it prescribes only to the
theory, because I would be communicating in the language the people
use, while you would only be communicating in a language you want
people to use.
Mike Sherrill <MSherrill_at_compuserve.com> wrote in message news:<5ibfev46ahle36rom0q2a0o4o50487fck4_at_4ax.com>...
> On 11 Jun 2003 10:07:02 -0700, anakin_at_unitedsoftworks.com (Todd
> Bandrowsky) wrote:
>
> >So I think for you to say that relational theory and SQL Servers are
> >not the same is disingenous.
>
> I'm tempted to observe that saying relational theory and SQL servers
> (lowercase "s") are the same is just fundamentally ignorant.
Received on Wed Jun 11 2003 - 22:46:24 CDT
