Re: c.d.theory glossary - proposed preamble

mAasterdam:

> This glossary aims to limit lengthy misunderstandings in
> comp.database.theory.
Bravo!

> People assume that words mean what they are accustomed to,
> and take for granted that the other posters have about the
> same connotations. They don't always.
> Some words are particularly suspect: database, class, normalisation.
> Some just cause minor annoyances, the misunderstanding is cleared and
> the discussion goes on: domain, type, transaction.
So we *will* have a unified vocabulary?

> We don't know well-accepted, formal or comprehensive definitions
> for everything. If you do have a useful reference, please provide it.
So we *won't* have a unified vocabulary?

> If an informal description is all we have, so be it.
Will we have *any* kind of vocabulary?

> The glossary is not meant as a dictionary or encyclopedia, ...
So why even have it at all?

Baffled by the goals,
Timothy J. Bruce
uniblab_at_hotmail.com
</RANT> Received on Mon Apr 19 2004 - 03:18:34 CEST