Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:41:39 GMT
Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:24:09 GMT, Jan Hidders
> <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote:
>> I didn't say the OODB data model, I said the *pure* OODB data >> model.
> Then you should say the *Pure* OODB data model.
> With Pure as a proper noun and not as and adjective.
>> 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.
> If you talk about gnomes everybody will know what you are talking
> about. It does not mean that they exist.
Do I really have to explain to you why this counter-argument is not valid for mathematical notions?
>> It is a wel-defined concept,
> I have searched for "Pure OODB" and I only have found two Van den
> Bussche's papers, many of them cited using lower case.
Yep. He is one of the big experts in that area. Really, Alfredo, I don't think I'm really interested in this discussion. I know from direct personal experience that your claim is false. If you don't want to believe me, then that is not really my problem.
>> I know what it means and so do most researchers in the field, and >> people smarter than you and me publish papers about it.
> Talk about yourself only ;)
Don't kid yourself. You're not even remotely close to the people that publish at PODS and ICDT.
Sure, me too. But there are relatively objective ways to find out where the higher-quality stuff is, and if you don't agree with what you see there, then that says probably more about you than them.
- Jan Hidders