Re: (repost) cdt glossary 0.1.1

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 01:39:10 GMT
Message-ID: <2XLgg.241302$WI1.14786@pd7tw2no>

Bob Badour wrote:

> paul c wrote:
> 

>> mAsterdam wrote:
>>
>>> ---------------
>>> Glossary 0.1.1: "You keep using that word.
>>> I do not think it means what
>>> February 2006 you think it means"
>>> --------------- -- Inigo Montoya
>>>
>>> Maintainer: mAsterdam
>>>
>>> Preamble:
>>> ---------------
>>> This glossary seeks to limit lengthy misunderstandings
>>> in comp.database.theory. This newsgroup uses terms from
>>> database modeling, design, implementation, operations,
>>> change management, cost sharing, productivity research,
>>> and /or basic database research.
>>>
>>> People tend to assume that words mean what they are
>>> accustomed to, and take for granted that the other
>>> posters have about the same connotations.
>>> They don't always.
>>>

> 
> [snip]
> 


>>> How to contribute

>>> -----------------

>>>

>>> Content:

>>> Please keep in mind that the focus of the glossary

>>> is on /real/ c.d.t. misunderstandings.

>>>

>>> Some discussions, after many sidetracks, are reducible

>>> to /just/ different meanings and connotations of a word.

>>> The differences could be resolved with just:

>>> "Ah, now I see what you meant by that; next time I'll

>>> be a little more careful in my choice of words".

>>> Such words are nice glossary candidates.

>>>

>>> Examples from the past: Address, Domain.

>>>

>>> Sometimes, though, It's not just different connotation

>>> or meaning which leads to the long winding talks

>>> without communication. These differences go down to

>>> deeply held strong opinions.

>>> Some differences in the use of words run much deeper than

>>> we can hope to clear up with just some definitions and

>>> warning signposts. They might help a little anyway, so

>>> these nastier entries are welcome, to.

>>>

>>> Examples from the past: NULL, Flat.

>>>

>>>

>>> Form:

>>> Please post your proposal as copy & pastable text,

>>> with a subject line like this:

>>>

>>>     subject: cdt glossary [Identity]

>>>

>>> Please also check spelling and grammar mistaeks.

>>>

>>> Thank you for contributing.

>>> ----

>>> Milestones? For the glossary I prefer inch-pebbles.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Okay, don't want to risk a premature definition but here's a stab at
>> an analogy/comparison for "persistence", a word that gets under my
>> skin most of the time I see it used here:
>>
>> If nothing changes but the time of day, what was true yesterday is
>> still true today.
>>
>> I may be wrong to see it this way, but this is why I don't associate
>> the acronym "rdms" with persistence, necessarily.

> 
> 
> I don't really know who created this glossary or who contributed what. 
> However, I note that we already have a recognized standard for the bulk 
> of the terms we use, ISO/IEC 2382 Standard Vocabularies for Information 
> Technology, and I note that some of the most fundamental definitions of 
> our field in this glossary are just plain wrong. One might think a 
> self-aggrandizing ignorant like Dawn wrote them. And I suppose it should 
> come as no surprise the maintainer has proved he lacks intellectual 
> honesty.

i'll stick my neck out and say that committee definitions are usually crap.

p Received on Sun Jun 04 2006 - 20:39:10 CDT