Re: Looking for a library databse of books

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 02:24:54 GMT
Message-ID: <W5Nah.378939$1T2.3060_at_pd7urf2no>


JOG wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:
> 

>>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.
> 
> 
> I find these to be a loud minority. We should be far more concerned
> about the amount of people who are not self-aggrandizing but merely do
> not realise they are ignorant.
> 
> 

>>From what I can see, they are all
>>trying to coin the next fad word around which to build a career spouting
>>nonsense.
> 
> 
> And that's been the way of things since the dawn of time (no pun
> intended dawn). I have however heard of a couple of projects currently
> receiving funding, which hope to remedy the problem by providing a
> central online source for the validation of established scientific
> knowledge. They are iterative and peer reviewed, serving as a
> repository for accepted assertions and the argumentation behind them,
> and aim to stop people reinventing wheels or passing off previously
> discredited approaches under a new name. I am relatively optimistic
> that eventually one such venture will have some sort of impact. I think
> Doug Engelbart would call them DKRs.
> 

In the short term, optimism is futile. History shows that advanced ideas are always promoted by some elite or other. The average person is usually not equipped nor prepared to appreciate them which gives an opening for any nincompoop who happens to use average language to build a following that either misinterprets the idea or resists it. It usually takes centuries before the common man appreciates an idea based on its merits as opposed to wilfull or unintentional misinterpretations.

This is also why most dictionaries are a failure as far as the average person is concerned and why everyday English is not by itself good enough to describe abstractions with any definiteness.

The elites would spend their time better advancing their ideas among themselves rather than trying to popularize them.

p Received on Tue Nov 28 2006 - 03:24:54 CET

Original text of this message