Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:05:53 +0200
I seached: "Pure OODB Model" and "Pure OODB Data Model" and I have got 0 results.
>The point of the paper is to show that on the leading conferences on
>database theory you can publish papers on the pure OODB data model and
>everybody will know what you are talking about.
> It is a wel-defined
But I have found many other "pure OODB's" like Objectivity, GemStone, etc.
> there a a few different definitions but they only differ in
>minor points, it's well-understood
"Pure OODB's are a special case, but of course so is a relational database (Abiteboul et al. op. cit.)"
"Summary: Pure OODB and RDB are fundamentally based on the same mathematical concept of relations. In RDB, it is relation/values. In OODB, the equivalent is class/instances."
>, I know what it means and so do most
>researchers in the field, and people smarter than you and me publish
>papers about it.
It is a shame that supposed researchers are publishing that rubbish using public funds.
The IT world is far from being serious and the academy is not an exception.
Regards Received on Thu Jun 23 2005 - 13:05:53 CEST