Re: pre-FAQ

"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message news:lxO5d.118118$MQ5.95552_at_attbi_s52...
> "mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message
news:4157acd6$0$48933$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> > >
> > > Q: Is this group related only to relational database theory?
> > > A: No.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> I think this could be rephrased to better emphasise the point Dawn
> wants to make; (I think we've had one misunderstanding already.)
>
> Q: Is the only kind of database theory discussed here the relational kind?
> N: Although relational tends to get most of the ink, discussions of other
> kinds of theory are also on-topic.
>
>
> > > Q: What do we mean by "database"?
>
> I don't think you're going to improve on "a database is a collection
> of facts." I would also reference "structure, integrity, manipulation"
> because that's darn good too.
>
> Hey, how about this one?
>
> Q: Is a database just an alternate way of having persistent data, like
> a structured file system?
>
> A: NO! Persistence is neither necessary nor sufficient for a database
> management system. DBMSs provide "structure, integrity, and manipulation"
> of databases.

Are you confusing "database" with "database management system" Marshall? Perhaps a question about whether this forum is only about DBMS's or all databases? (The latter would be the answer, I would think).

>
> > > Q: What do we mean by "theory"?
>
> I would certainly like to have a better definition for this word myself.
>

It is one of those terms that is heavily overloaded. I would think we would want to have the umbrella opened wide for this term as we have for "database". We could limit it to "mathematical theories" but that would unnecessarily leave out a significant number of the current topics.

<snip>

--dawn Received on Mon Sep 27 2004 - 23:13:06 CEST