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

Jon Heggland wrote:
> In article <8L2ve.129452$Qy4.7039020_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
> jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be 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.
>
Jim Gray said to me once, face to face, that "XML might, just might, be THE next Data Model".

I don't know if he still thinks so, but at one point in time this is what he said.

regards,
Lauri Pietarinen Received on Thu Jun 30 2005 - 09:07:07 CEST