Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]

From: Jon Heggland <>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 14:33:36 +0200
Message-ID: <>

In article <8L2ve.129452$>, says...
> Well, even for an anecdote it's a bit light on information. Basically
> all I know now is that someone with better qualifications than you said
> something that you apparently very much disagreed with. I hope you will
> forigive me that, as long as that is all the information that I have, I
> think there is a distinct possibility that 'the big name' was actually
> right.

Yes, except (as I forgot to say) that 'the name' changed 'its' mind after reading the other two reviews of the paper. The reason I am light on information is that I am not sure about the ethics of giving the names of the people involved. Or details of the paper, for that matter.

But never mind. My point was just that even respected scientists may be blind to the reinvention of wheels, especially if the technology names are changed and steeped in hype.

> > I've often wondered what exactly *is* an XML-native solution. Is it
> > storing everything as text files?
> It can be. One of the better definitions is found at:

This really is one of the better? Oh well.

> > So it is a renaissance of the network model?
> Well, if you want to call it that. But as I said, that name has all
> kinds of connotations that would not be justified. The data model would
> be more expressive. The constraint language would be very different. The
> query language would be very different. The update language would be
> very different. View definitions would be different. The way that
> queries would be optimized would be very different. Concurrency control
> would be different. These are not trivial things. They matter.

Of course they matter. I'm just wondering why all this would be different. Just the advent of new and better brains since the sixties/seventies, or other developments of computer science?

> > Ok ... but I though half the point of OODBs was to lessen the "impedance
> > mismatch" between procedural OO programming languages and declarative
> > databases (by making the databases less declarative). What is the
> > motivation now?
> I'm not sure I understand. Whose motivation? For what?

The motivation for studying network databases under a new name, even with different languages. I know that probably very many good ideas were abandoned due to e.g. lack of computing resources thirty, forty or fifty years ago, and might benefit from being reexamined, but the network model was abandoned due to the rather obvious superiority of the relational model. What do the OODB researcher hope to accomplish?

(Not that I think research can't or shouldn't be basic/aimless---but in computer science, the starting point is often a problem to be solved. Is there a problem? What is it?)

Received on Sat Jun 25 2005 - 14:33:36 CEST

Original text of this message