Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: (repost) cdt glossary 0.1.1

Re: (repost) cdt glossary 0.1.1

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 01:48:45 GMT
Message-ID: <14Mgg.17673$A26.410299@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>


paul c wrote:

> 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.

Committee or no, the ISO/IEC vocabularies are very good, reflect well what educated people mean when they use various terms, and are very illuminating.

Creating a misleading and incorrect glossary through the volunteer contributions of vociferous ignorami is counter-productive and just plain dumb. Received on Sun Jun 04 2006 - 20:48:45 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US