Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:24:09 GMT, Jan Hidders <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote:

>I didn't say the OODB data model, I said the *pure* OODB data model.

Then you should say the *Pure* OODB data model.

With Pure as a proper noun and not as and adjective.

I seached: "Pure OODB Model" and "Pure OODB Data Model" and I have got 0 results.

>The point of the paper is to show that on the leading conferences on
>database theory you can publish papers on the pure OODB data model and
>everybody will know what you are talking about.

If you talk about gnomes everybody will know what you are talking about. It does not mean that they exist.

> It is a wel-defined
>concept,

I have searched for "Pure OODB" and I only have found two Van den Bussche's papers, many of them cited using lower case.

But I have found many other "pure OODB's" like Objectivity, GemStone, etc.

> there a a few different definitions but they only differ in
>minor points, it's well-understood

"Pure OODB's are a special case, but of course so is a relational database (Abiteboul et al. op. cit.)"

http://www.cs.umb.edu/efg/manuscripts/ICEpaper142.doc

"Summary: Pure OODB and RDB are fundamentally based on the same mathematical concept of relations. In RDB, it is relation/values. In OODB, the equivalent is class/instances."

Neo

>, I know what it means and so do most
>researchers in the field, and people smarter than you and me publish
>papers about it.

Talk about yourself only ;)

It is a shame that supposed researchers are publishing that rubbish using public funds.

The IT world is far from being serious and the academy is not an exception.

I have found all kind of foolish things in academic texts about databases.

Regards Received on Thu Jun 23 2005 - 13:05:53 CEST