Re: A good book

"Chris Smith" <cdsmith_at_twu.net> wrote in message news:MPG.1f18d485d6b23af8989760_at_news.altopia.net...
> Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > It's not a difficult request. You are just too ignorant and too arrogant
> > to quietly accept the correct answer.
>
> If Codd's paper is the right answer, then I am reading it. However, I
> don't tend to stand back and let people spew nonsense. I have certainly
> been getting a little annoyed at your repeated, and apparently
> intentional, misunderstandings of what I'm asking; especially the
> constant switch from "database" to "relational theory" as if the two are
> the same thing.

Codd's 1970 paper puts forward the idea that relational theory can profitably be used to build a data model, (the relational data model). Further, that a DBMS based on the relational data model would offer advantages that existing DBMSes did not offer at all, or offerred to a very limited degree.

History has largely confirmed the ideas put forward in the 1970 paper, although the ideas have certainly evolved since then.

So....... while I wouldn't go so fa as to assert that "database" and "relational theory" are "the same thing", they are certainly closely related. And the best place to start is the 1970 paper. It's concise without being terse, and it lays out the case for developing a relational DBMS. Received on Wed Jul 12 2006 - 13:08:15 CEST