Re: dbms/rdbms software & its environment
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:34:39 GMT
Message-ID: <3LTnb.170156$bo1.73616_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
news:cd3b3cf.0310290638.29b82b26_at_posting.google.com...
> "Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
news:<WCJnb.38525$mZ5.217453_at_attbi_s54>...
> > "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:Z9Inb.169368$bo1.106498_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > There have been a few astute posts here and there
> > > to the effect that notwithstanding the benefit of the
> > > development of "the relational model" for databases,
> > > for the last 20 years database theory (a la Date for
> > > example) has remained database centric in its thinking.
> > >
> > > Is this a fair summarisation?
> >
> > I don't think I understand this, so I can't really comment.
>
> What's to understand?
>
> There have been a few astute posts here and there to the effect that
> notwithstanding the benefit of the development of "the internal
> combustion engine" for automobiles, for the last 20 years automobile
> theory (a la Shelby for example) has remained automobile centric in
> its thinking.
An automobile consists of a number of inter-related parts perhaps the most important being the internal combustion engine which drives the entire assembly.
However the experts appear strangely silent on the matter, preferring to remain undividedly focused only on the engine component of the overall assembly. Is this a fair comment?
> I would say these "astute" posters have a fine grasp of the obvious.
We'll see. Received on Wed Oct 29 2003 - 19:34:39 CET