Re: What is a database?

> On Wednesday, 5 March 2014 08:27:39 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
> > On 2014-03-03, Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <mental gyrations snipped>
>
> I asked a question in this newsgroup,
> not because I lacked an answer, but because I wanted to see what
> variation of answers the people here came up with.

Accepted. You did not state your purpose at the outset, but accepted now.

> You provided an answer,

Agreed thus far. The answer was "Ordered, Structured, Normalised"

> I asked a question about it,

Agreed thus far. The answer was:

1.  I don't have private definitions
2.  The terms as defined in:
2.a.  Normal human logic (and I believe you have accepted the definitions from Oxford, which you referenced)
2.b.  Re databases, The Relational Model, which is the standard since 1984.

> and you have given me no answer,

Stop lying.

The answer was, and I will repeat it for you, "Ordered, Structured, Normalised, as per the Relational Model"

> <mental waffle snipped>

The fact is, as evidenced, you cannot (a) read the RM, and (b) understand it, you cannot find anything regarding "Ordered, Structured, Normalised" (the meaning, not the occurrence of the word).

• Aside -- True, I did offer to educate you about it. But that is because you could not read or understand the RM, and because there is a mountain of garbage written, allegedly about the RM, which has nothing to do with the RM. Those authors too, cannot read or understand the RM.

Ok, fine, I retract my offer to educate you.

That means you are stuck at, a non-starter at, [2.b]

Even when I did provide answers, you did not recognise them, because they reference the RM, which by the consistent volume of evidence you have provided in this thread, you do not understand. -- End Aside --

So the fact is, you cannot understand the answers to your question (whatever the purpose of it was), because you cannot read or understand standard texts on the subject of your own question. Nothing to do with me.

No amount of twisting that into "you are not answering my question" is going to change the simple evidenced facts. The problem is yours, and yours alone.

> > -- because you want a definition for a database, and Dr E F Codd wrote the
> > RM, which is the standard
>
> This from someone that said yes, databases did exist before Codd.

???

You didn't know that databases (pre-relational, of course, with full OLTP and ACID Transactions) existed "before Codd". We had Databases; Order; Structure; Normalisation before Codd, yes. We had standards for those, yes. Evidently you don't read, so try the wiki entries for simpletons, for:

-- Hierarchical database (IBM's IMS) or Hierarchical Model
-- Network Database (Cincom's TOTAL) or Network Model
-- Navigational database (pithy term, invented after the fact of Relational, to explain some of the limitations of what non-relational was) 

???

Or maybe you do not understand chronology, history.

Codd wrote his paper in 1970, when he worked for IBM, and the basis in their IMS (which you would know, if you could read the RM). Since it was seminal, and it changed the way we viewed database and data, it took a while for the vendors to re-implement their long-standing, well-estabished database platforms as true Relational platforms. The first one came out in 1984.

Therefore *after* Codd (1970 in theoretical terms; 1984 in implementation terms), we have *Relational* Databases; Order; Structure; Normalisation.

That means, *subsequent* to the pre-relational standards for *Relational* Databases; Order; Structure; Normalisation, that existed at 1970, we had standards for *Relational* Databases; Order; Structure; Normalisation. Fully implemented by 1984.

We put men on the Moon in 1969. Using minicomputers and pre-relational databases. You seem to have intimate knowledge of outer space, you should have heard of the Apollo missions. We had landing craft and everything. We watched it, live, on television. At least those of us who were more than five years old in 1969.

> You will supply nothing. You have nothing of use to supply.

That is correct, as it applies to you. I have nothing to supply to one who cannot read or understand the technical terms and concepts provided in the RM, *and* who is unwilling to learn it.

For anyone else (who doesn't understand the RM but who is willing to learn it), I have something that is beyond your ken. There is zero value in your speculations about subject matter that, by your evidence, you know nothing about. It is like a pigmy speculating about air travel, you are at the point where you are afraid of the bus.

Since you are clueless about Relational, all your "databases" are, by definition, non-Relational, navigational data heaps. You have none of the integrity, power and speed of Relational databases (the *Order; Structure; Normalisation* that you do not understand). But you seem to be quite happy with that, scared witless about any knowledge that threatens the "validity" of your data heaps.

Stick the paper route.

A restated answer to the initial question is in order.

> On Sunday, 1 December 2013 04:51:50 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
>
> No, seriously, what is your short, accurate definition of the word
> "database" (in, but not necessarily restricted to, a computer context)?

Good question. Since some time has passed since 1970, when the seminal work of Dr E F Codd changed the database landscape permanently, one *should* ask:

What is your short, accurate definition of the term Relational Database ?

Since, as evidenced by you, you cannot read or understand the RM, the answer to *that* question is beyond you.

That is further proved by your initial question, which does not refer to "relational" in any way, therefore I shall withdraw from imposing any post-1970 database technology requirements on you, and return to *your* initial question. Please accept my apologies for the imposition. I will now try and answer within the scope of your understanding:

> On Sunday, 1 December 2013 04:51:50 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
>
> No, seriously, what is your short, accurate definition of the word
> "database" (in, but not necessarily restricted to, a computer context)?

An ordered, structured collection of data.

Since, as per your evidence, your mind is permanently fixed in the pre-1970, pre-relational age, and some of us in the IT industry have progressed during the subsequent forty four years, it is best if you refrain from trying to understand the "computer context", and stick to the filing cabinets.

Cheers
Derek Received on Wed Mar 05 2014 - 03:01:19 CET