Re: Hierarchical Model and its Relevance in the Relational Model
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 12:17:56 +0000
Message-ID: <slrnmcphvk.5gs.eric_at_bruno.deptj.eu>
On 2015-01-30, Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 January 2015 13:09:08 UTC+11, James K. Lowden wrote:
8>< --------
>> (I hereby propose that on c.t.d. we refer to this source as RMDLSBD.)
>
> NO.
>
> I am not saying that you are being dishonest. But that is exactly the
> kind of madness that you guys perform, that we have to swallow, and I
> am not swallowing it.
Why on earth shouldn't there be an accepted abbreviation to refer to this single very important paper, for everybody here, whether they accept it or reject the paper, in whole or in part?
(although it should be RMDLSDB to get the words of the title in the correct order)
> The database world (separate to the tiny fraction of mathematicians
> concerned with the RM, which is say 1%) knows the RM by the term RM.
> It consists of Codd's original paper, easily accessible, plus his 11 other
> papers, noting some are exploratory and retracted, some are commercial
> interest, etc. It is a body of work that is well known.
More or less well known, given that there are more than 11 papers (look at some bibliographies), some of which are _not_ easily accessible. So how about listing the 11, categorised into definitive, exploratory, retracted, commercial interest and any other categories you like.
Thankyou.
Eric
-- ms fnd in a lbryReceived on Sat Jan 31 2015 - 13:17:56 CET