Re: Looking for a library databse of books

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:15:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4AIah.25719$cz.391354_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>


JOG wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:
>

>>servermachine_at_gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>I regard a database as a set of related files that are created and
>>>managed by a DBMS, whereas a dataset would be a data file or collection
>>>or interrelated data.
>>>
>>>Bob Badour wrote:
>>>
>>>>servermachine_at_gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I should correct this to: Looking for a library dataset of books
>>>>>
>>>>>servermachine_at_gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hey all.
>>>>>>I'm trying to get hold of a database of books, preferably in sql,
>>>>>>access or something easily convertable to those.
>>>>>>The database should be like a library's, with records containing title,
>>>>>>author, publisher, year, isbn, dewey..etc
>>>>>>Can anyone help me find one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>TIA
>>>>
>>>>I am curious what difference you think exists between a database and a
>>>>dataset.
>>
>>If a database with hundreds of relations is in a single physical file,
>>does that make it no longer a database but a dataset instead?

>
> I see a database as a logical encoding of statements of fact with
> appropriate schema and integrity constraints, whereas a dataset is
> merely a bag of 'data items'.

Any given database is physical, logical and conceptual. A database is a database regardless of the logical data model.

  Hence when I hear the term database I see
> it as referring to the strict definition of data as used on this board
> and in DBMS as a whole. In contrast when I hear the term 'data set' I
> semantically connect it to the overly-general and wooly computer
> science use of the term data.

As far as I know, the computer science use of the term data means information represented suitably for machine processing of some sort. Granted, our field is full of Humpty Dumpty people who make up all sorts of absurd meanings for words.

But what is overly-general or wooly about the standard definition?

> I am still unconvinced there is adequate consensus on terminology
> across the field.

I find the standard definitions generally adequate. We won't get any consensus while we continue to tolerate the self-aggrandizing ignorants making up new meanings left and right. From what I can see, they are all trying to coin the next fad word around which to build a career spouting nonsense. Received on Mon Nov 27 2006 - 22:15:44 CET

Original text of this message