Re: citations of nature

From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 22:31:56 -0600
Message-ID: <btddo3$t87$1_at_news.netins.net>

"Anith Sen" <anith_at_bizdatasolutions.com> wrote in message

news:zdqKb.11289$6B.2907_at_newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> news:rgfKb.78898$aT.66274_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone who wants to can define a database as a set, but unless I see
> some
> > > glaring problem with defining it to be what regular people actually
> think
> > it
> > > is (even if adding some precision to the language), I'll continue to
do
> > so.
> > > I suppose someone could define a car engine in an abstract way too...?
> > > Cheers! --dawn
> >
> > I think that the use of these database systems in today's IT shops
> > is sometimes well beyond the scope of their theoretical academic
> > treatment, and that there is a great deal under the hood of the
> > modern rdbms that was not in the database last decade.
> >
> Pete,
>
> The statement, which you seem agree with, is in no way "more practical"
than
> Darwen's observation. In fact, the statement given by Dawn doesn't define
a
> database correctly -- Data in a storage device, with "information about
that
> data", is not a database; just think about it.
>
> A set of propositions is a formal, succinct, clear and generic definition
of
> a database.
>
> To understand why this is the correct interpretation of a database, you
have
> to know precisely what data is, how one should represent data to derive
> maximum benefits, why it is important to separate data storage aspects
from
> data representation etc. These are not academic treatments, as you put it;
> but simple yet crucial fundamentals which you ought to know.
>
> --
> - Anith
> ( Please reply to newsgroups only )
>

I would agree that there certainly could be a word that means "a set of propositions" but if someone tells me that they have a database, I expect it to be a set of propositions that are stored somewhere and that can be queried, don't you? It is fine to take abstract concepts and define them abstractly, but to take a word that for decades has been interpreted to mean something concrete and extract only the abstract qualities of it, seems irresponsible. Otherwise, what would you call what I think is a database?

Thanks! --dawn Received on Tue Jan 06 2004 - 05:31:56 CET