Re: DMoz Relational Implementations category: chaff from wheat

From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne_at_acm.org>
Date: 31 May 2004 22:52:39 GMT
Message-ID: <2i1r9nFi2nlvU3_at_uni-berlin.de>

Quoth "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com>:

> "Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti Dutra" <leandro_at_dutra.fastmail.fm> wrote
> in message news:pan.2004.05.31.18.16.15.650351_at_dutra.fastmail.fm...

>> I maintain the
>> http://dmoz.org./Computers/Software/Databases/Relational category,
>> including the Implementation subcategory.
>>
>> It has been a long time since I have wanted to check the
>> 'relationalness' of several listed systems, but haven't neither the
>> time nor the expertise.
>>
>> So I would like to ask someone more knowledgeable to take a
>> look and tell me which systems should be considered 'quasi-relational'
>> -- meaning not relational at all, but at least more interesting than
>> SQL -- and which should be dumped altogether.
>>

> <snip>
> Do you consider every database that speaks SQL to be relational? --dawn

The list of implementations does not include so much as one that has "SQL" in its name, so it should be pretty obvious that the answer to that is "NO!"

-- 
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in String.concat "_at_" [name;tld];;
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/internet.html
"Power tends  to corrupt and absolute power  corrupts absolutely."  
-- First Baron Acton, 1834 - 1902

Received on Tue Jun 01 2004 - 00:52:39 CEST