Re: Is there a "third generation" DB yet?

From: jim caprioli <>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:10:11 +0200
Message-ID: <opr6ih69jei17tql_at_News.individual.NET>

All this functionality is available today although not in what we call the 'database'. Who was talking about Application Servers when Oracle was pushing releasing 8i? They wanted everything in the DB. The market said NO and they had to change their strategy... and then there was Oracle AS 9i. Way too late and with zillions of irritating bugs. (Closed source is an insult to the customer AND to 95% of the -tech- staff who don't have access either.) Anyway: Grid Computing sounds 'cool'. I apologize, I am going OFF-TOPIC here. I replied because I just don't see any innovation in the list of features.

My point: It doesn't matter where functionality is implemented. Who knows, maybe we are heading for a Borg or a Matrix with all the data of all the databases in the world which we access like a webservice today. Sounds like science fiction but that is where most innovation starts.

Jim Cp

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:50:17 -0700, Scottie Swenson <> wrote:

> Greetings,
> The paper "The Third-Generation Database System Manifesto" written by
> The Committee for Advanced DBMS Function (1990) a set of specifications
> were documented as being required for a DBS to be considered truly 3rd
> generation.
> Specifically a 3rd generation DBS had to:
> 1) Support object and relational operations including
> inheritance and "Multiple inheritances are essential"
> thus the constructed DBs inheritance hierarchy would
> be directed graphs
> 2) Provide additional type constructors e.g.:
> a) an abstract data type system to construct new base types
> b) an array type constructor
> c) a sequence type constructor
> d) a record type constructor
> e) a set type constructor
> f) functions as a type
> g) a union type constructor
> h) recursive composition of the above constructors
> 3) Allow rules, functions and operations to be
> implement in a 4GL
> 4) Must subsume second generation DBS abilities:
> a) Non procedural query language with query optimizer
> b) Provide a rules system
> c) Full SQL client/server support
> d) Support for views
> 5) Must undo any hard coded requirement for UIDs
> and discourage navigation
> 6) Must provide support for 4GLs
> 7) Must support distributed databases, and
> 8) Must (essentially) automatically tune the system to
> perform efficient data management
> The questions are:
> 1) Do you agree that the above list accurately describes the
> requirements for a true 3rd generation database? (if not what is missing
> or what is incorrect?)
> 2) Is there a current database system that meets these requirements?
> I am aware of the Hugh Darwen & Chris Date's 1995 paper "The Third
> Manifesto" which argues a number of the points above. But, I wanted to
> center the discussion on the original paper and move forward from there.
> Feel free to counter with your views between the two papers.
> Cheers,
> Scottie

Received on Thu Apr 15 2004 - 21:10:11 CEST

Original text of this message