Re: Total Cost of Ownership

From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:55:54 -0500
Message-ID: <c5ehna$epk$>

Yes, we can state the purpose of a database more abstractly than the original questions you asked me of the purpose of IBM's UniVerse product or of MS SQL Server. Which are you looking for? What would you say is the purpose of MS SQL Server, for example? --dawn

"Laconic2" <> wrote in message
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <> wrote in message
> news:c5ecng$khv$
> > Should we take another stab at it or do you think you have it nailed in
> the
> > purpose statement above? --dawn
> Notice that I stated what the purpose of a "database" is, not what the
> purpose of a DBMS is. It seems to me that you can describe the purpose of
> DBMS as being to enable the management of a database in a systematic
> but I may be starting down a trail that leads nowhere, here.
> Note that, in my definition, it says almost nothing about the particular
> technology used. In these terms, a body of data stored in a PICK file
> could be evaluated based on how well is preserved the value and
> availability of the data in the PICK file.
> I also said almost nothing about whether CONSTRAINTS in a database are
> helpful or harmful. In one context, they might be helpful, because they
> prevent the coherence of the existing data from being undermined by data
> that violates the constraint. In another context a constraint might be
> harmful, because it interferes with keeping the body of data current.
> So, no I don't think I nailed it, but I do think I nailed something.
Received on Mon Apr 12 2004 - 18:55:54 CEST

Original text of this message