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: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 02:09:47 GMT
Message-ID: <LnMgg.239479$7a.27615@pd7tw1no>


Bob Badour wrote:
> 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.

sure, but the same argument applies to acknowledging idiots.

[ Received on Sun Jun 04 2006 - 21:09:47 CDT

Original text of this message

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