Re: citations of nature

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message news: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 think you are emphasizing about storing data, perhaps since your background deals with structures that do not have a concept of data independence. Database is a logical concept and how it maps to the physical model ( files/ storage/ disk/ distribution etc. ) is mostly irrelevant to the user

> 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?

>

-- 
- Anith
( Please reply to newsgroups only )