Re: citations of nature

"mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message news:VdTJb.77341$aT.14016_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote:
<snip>.
>
> Formally, does a database require a user of that database?
>
<snip>

I suspect that most definitions of "database" leave out the user, however, one can certainly tighten the definition to indicate that someone or something must take an action to store and retrieve the data. I prefer the definition without an actor outside of the "machine". (Does the car have an engine even if no one starts or stops it?)

One of the talks in my files is on the parts of a computer being Input, Output, Chip, and Disk. The 1st grade class was a great audience to interact with while defining computers in terms of Input, Output, Processing, and Storage. The database touches on all of these areas, but I think it is focussed on Storage.

While I agree with Marshall that a DBMS can be extracted to more of a formal structure or model, I don't equate a DBMS with a database. Storing data for subsequent queries and retrieval is the central concept with a database. This implies some structure (for the retrieval) but doesn't require all of the features one might place in a DBMS (typing, integrity, logging, transactions, etc).

Also, while formally I would consider a paper-based filing system to be a database, for the purposes of the work I am doing, I do restrict discussions of databases to those where the input, output, processing, and storage are computer-based. I don't think it would be easy to define a DBMS that would include a paper-based system since the automation (by computer) of certain tasks seems central to the DBMS capabilities.

cheers --dawn Received on Sun Jan 04 2004 - 13:58:58 CET