Re: Dr. Brown asserts databases are dead, dead as a dodo [was Re: First Impressions on Using Alphora's Dataphor]

Slightly edited for readability.

> > > "Paul G. Brown" <paul_geoffrey_brown_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:57da7b56.0408301732.c200bd5_at_posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > Forget databases, guys. They're dead. Dead as the dodo.
> > >

> > "D Guntermann" <guntermann_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message

>  news:<I3Aqo2.817_at_news.boeing.com>...

   It's probably my error. When I see 'comp.databases.theory', I    substitute 'comp.databases.research'. And when I say 'databases are dead'    (and I'm not convinced that they are - I'm just sayin' it cos' the    idea has been gathering traction) I mean that they are likely to    prove to be a sterile subject of research, from either a theory or    a systems perspective, and that we are unlikely to see significant    investment in 'new stuff' in the DBMS area, either by vendors, or by    customers.

   Some folk have asserted that 'all theory development is behind us' and I    think I agree with that to the extent that we haven't seen any dramatic,    fully realized theoretical work in computer science recently. But folk have    been working hard: Pi Calculus, and Quantum Computing Models are two    places where lots of ink is being spilled.

"D Guntermann" <guntermann_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<I3EC9r.G28_at_news.boeing.com>...

> My original question asked for some sort of concrete example, or examples.
> Is it GRID?  Is it something like from Jennifer Widom's research in streams?
> Are you thinking in terms of the difference between memory and storage media
> (orthogonal in that both are storage) What?

   Now that's jus' crazy talk! (BTW: It's not just Prof. Widom: it's also    the Aurora folk, the Endeavour folk, the Niagra folk, and a swamp of    others, who are interested in streams and have adapted relational ideas    to that context.)

   Short answer is "I don't know". We all have ideas, but quite what    "the next next great wave" will be, I don't know. (And BTW: your    "next great wave"/ODBMS was a cheap shot, Dan - 90% of what that book    talked about was well within the bounds of what might be called    "relational orthdoxy".)

"D Guntermann" <guntermann_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<I3EC9r.G28_at_news.boeing.com>...

> I agree in one sense.  I still see the same fundamental problems with data
> definition and management within the context of a single system, or limited
> distributed systems.  You seem to be saying that these problems are no
> longer relevant, and that we can just skip these because now we will
> increase scope.

  One note of clarification on my part.

  I object to every use of the word 'data' here. The problem relates to   'system functionality definition and management'. I propose expanding the   notion of a relation to encompass units of logic, or execution, in addition   to data.

"D Guntermann" <guntermann_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<I3EC9r.G28_at_news.boeing.com>...

> If your objective is to find a "growth technology", then I can't help you
> there; but there is something to be said about theory and knowledge for
> theory and knowledge's sake.

   Ah, Dan! Now yer' singin' my song. "Truth is beauty / and beauty truth. /  This is all ye need to know of life / and all ye need to know."

   I embrace this idea with every metaphysical fillament of my soul. Trouble   is, my bank don't take 'manna in heaven' or 'karma points' for mortgage   payments.

   (Hope this is a little less "drama queen". Whoever said that was right   on the mark.) Received on Thu Sep 02 2004 - 18:33:07 CEST