Re: More on Database cells, and other terminology

David Cressey wrote:

> A little while ago, I took the view that people who use terms like "field"
> and "record" in places where "column" and "row" are more appropriate
> shouldn't be lambasted for that, in these newsgroups.
>
> Now, I'm about to take the other side of the argument, in a slightly
> different context. I think references, even public ones like Wikipedia,
> have an obligation to be very precise in their definitions.
> I looked up "table (database)" in the wikipedia, and found this article:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_%28database%29
>
> I think the use of terminology is too loose, for an encyclopedia article.
> It could mislead the unwary reader. Here's an example:
>
> "In non-relational / hierarchical systems, the equivalent of a table is a
> structured file, containing lines or records (the rows) and fields (the
> columns)."
>
> I think the use of "equivalent" is too strong here. The concepts, as Joe
> Celko and others point out, are NOT equivalent.
> The following wording might be better:
>
> "In non-relational / hierarchical systems, the corresponding thing to a
> table is a structured file, containing lines or records (the rows) and
> fields (the columns)."
>
> "corresponding to" sounds to me more accurate than "equivalent". This may
> seem too notpicky to some. But I'd like Wikipedia to be as close to on
> target as feasable.
>
> Continuing on.
>
> "Unlike a spreadsheet, a database table can not take arbitrary information
> in any cell, nor can values be represented as formulae which compute values
> on the fly. The datatype of each field is strictly defined by the schema
> describing the table."
>
> Note the use of "cell" for spreadsheets, while the word "field" is used
> with databases. That suggest to me that the term "database cell", which I
> advocated, might be less than ideal, and that a better terminology would
> be to use the word "field" for the intersection of a row and a column. It
> would still be important to distinguish between a "field" and "column".

More important is the ignorant assertion that the dbms cannot derive data, which is exactly what views do. But in the end, it is a wiki. The folks who run it would encourage you to just fix mistakes you find. Received on Sun May 07 2006 - 19:54:39 CEST