Re: citations of nature
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:04:06 -0600
Message-ID: <btagmq$tc4$1_at_news.netins.net>
"mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:G83Kb.77896$aT.48598_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> news:Z8Cdnat3hPU0b2qiRVn-vg_at_golden.net...
> > "Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
> > news:uFOJb.52423$I07.174447_at_attbi_s53...
> > > "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> > news:bt7n7f$iq5$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > > >
> > > > The definition I'm currently using is:
> > > > Database: Retrievable data encoded on a persistent storage device
> > combined
> > > > with metadata - information about that data.
> > >
> > > I think that too much thinking these days goes into the "persistence"
> > part.
> >
> > Sheesh! What nonsense! Compare the complex jargon above with Darwen's
> > observation that "A database is a set of facts."
> >
> So what is a "fact"?
> An element of data?
>
> How might this definition deal with program objects
> (such as stored procedures) in the database?
>
>
For my purposes it is important to distinguish a database from an unstructured OS file of, for example, ascii text with no associated metadata. "A set of facts" is abstract and, sure, one can define it that way, but to what advantage when "data model" is also abstract?. A database that is not instantiated simply isn't, in my definition. Again, of Input, Output, Processing, and Storage, a database has more to do with storage than the others. A set of facts that is stored no where does not database makes, methinks.
--dawn Received on Mon Jan 05 2004 - 03:04:06 CET