Re: Sensible and NonsenSQL Aspects of the NoSQL Hoopla
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 18:18:25 +0200
Message-ID: <52275d51$0$26871$e4fe514c_at_dreader37.news.xs4all.nl>
On 2013-09-04 05:28:01 +0000, Norbert_Paul said:
> Jan Hidders wrote:
>> On 2013-09-01 18:37:17 +0000, Norbert_Paul said:
>>
>>> The paper does not mention the spatial databasers. What are their >>> historical part of the NoSQL movement?
>>
>> I don't think has played a big part in practice, although the NoSQL
>> advocates nodoubt will be happy to use it as ammunition when arguing
>> that there are inadequacies to be found in the relational model and/or SQL.
> > The author is one of (maybe /the/)the most influential protagonists in > spatial data and Geoinformation. Whereas the paper may not have been > important the author surely is. > >>> For example http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~max/RJ6.html not only argues >>> against actual shortcomings of SQL1 in the standard of 1898 >>> http://www2.yk.psu.edu/~lxn/IST_210/sql1_versus_sql2.html >>> but also against the relational model. However, I simply don't get >>> some of the arguments therein:
>>
>> [.. SNIP ..]
>>
>> Neither do I, and my compliments for the analyis. Am I right in reading
>> some irritation between the lines that goes beyond a natural distaste
>> for shoddy reasoning?
> > Yes. The irriatation is based on bad personal experience within the > last three years. For example a (deliberate?) publication delay of > more than three years. There seems to be an extremely influential group > of researchers around the author where this kind of shoddy (thanks for > the new vocabulary) work is the only one accepted. Have a look at > "alternating hierarchical decomposition" (AHD). It just doesn't work > in 3D.
Like this?:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5293499&tag=1
So the claim in the abstract about "scalable to any dimension" is wrong?
>
>> What to say about these things? Yes, it is unfortunate that in this type
>> of papers, where certain languages or models are bashed and other are
>> promoted, for some reason all basic scientific principles seem to go out
>> of the window and all reasoning becomes more or less based on intuitive
>> gut-feeling and uncritically accepting communis opinio from the
>> community that the writer is publishing in. Science should be about
>> critically and skeptically investigating claims or providing good
>> evidence for them that convinces the informed intelligent but skeptical
>> reader. But there are practical reasons that I'm all too familiar with
>> for why for real-world database researcher that bar is often a bit too
>> high.
> > The problem is, when evidence is given, reviewers say that this is "too > abstract and technical" or they have an article wait forever to become > published. On the other hand, when a scientist's position is secured he > can make /any/ claim without any evidence. I thought this could be an > alternative channel here to post something critical. There is no > reviewing on comp.databases.theory.
Indeed. But also not much of an audience. But who knows, it might come, and it's easier and less demanding (usually :-)) then a blog.
>> For the record, as you know I'm also very critical of the relational
My mistake. I meant Chris Date and Fabian Pascal. In the database
research community they have no discernable influence as far as I can
>> camp around Date, Fabian etc., and in fact of the opinion that they also
>> commit offences against proper scientific etiquette that are at least as
>> bad.
>
> I will look up Date and Fabian. Are they influential?
- Jan Hidders