Re: pre-FAQ
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:03:30 -0500
Message-ID: <cjcu4o$1o3$1_at_news.netins.net>
"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
news:dw76d.121936$MQ5.80932_at_attbi_s52...
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message
news:cj9vp9$vof$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > "Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
> > news:lxO5d.118118$MQ5.95552_at_attbi_s52...
> > > "mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message
> > news:4157acd6$0$48933$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> > >
> > > > > Q: 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?
>
> No. What made you think so?
The question asks about a "database" and the answer responds about how "Persistence is neither necessary nor sufficient for a database management system".
> > Perhaps a question about whether this forum is only about DBMS's or all
> > databases? (The latter would be the answer, I would think).
>
> I don't understand your objection. If we stick to a strict interpretation
of
> the terms "database" and "dbms," as your comment seems to invite, > then I would say we *don't* want to discuss databases, but the management > thereof.
since it is comp.databases.theory I would think we want to discuss the theory of databases, with any theory about database management systems being secondary or another angle, but not the primary purpose.
> Otherwise it would be as if we had a newsgroup on library > science, and some guy came in and wanted to discuss some book > he'd just read.
I'm not equating "databases" with instances or commercial products. DBMS's are products in my vocabulary. We seem to be using the same terms in somewhat opposite ways.
>> > >
> > > > > 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.
> > There are two senses of the word "theory" as it is commonly used: > 1) a formal system of thought > 2) a conjucture, a wild-assed guess > > From what I can tell, most people can't tell the two meanings apart. The > term as it is used in this newsgroup name is the first sense.
although there is no particular test, it seems, to determine whether a theory fits the first or second category Cheers! --dawn
> > Marshall > >Received on Wed Sep 29 2004 - 02:03:30 CEST