Talk:Relational database management system: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Jan Hidders (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
: Whether it's really POV depends upon the exact wording, so it's a bit hard to say in advance if what you plan to write is NPOV or not. I suggest you just go ahead and then you'll find out if there are any complaints about NPOVness or not. Personally I would say that if you are going to present Codd's opinion on the matter then that is how you should present it, as Codd's opinion, if only because we are talking about engineering principles here and not so much about scientific facts. The biggest potential problem is probably the strict use of the term "RDBMS" in the sense that Codd defines it, but if you announce that in the beginning of the article I don't see a problem with that. What I would have a problem with is the claim that SQL databases cannot be called relational or their banning from this article. This is not how the term is understood and used by most practicioners and researchers in the field of databases and therefore not how it should be used in an encyclopedia article about the subject. -- [[User:Jan Hidders|Jan Hidders]] 11:34, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
: Whether it's really POV depends upon the exact wording, so it's a bit hard to say in advance if what you plan to write is NPOV or not. I suggest you just go ahead and then you'll find out if there are any complaints about NPOVness or not. Personally I would say that if you are going to present Codd's opinion on the matter then that is how you should present it, as Codd's opinion, if only because we are talking about engineering principles here and not so much about scientific facts. The biggest potential problem is probably the strict use of the term "RDBMS" in the sense that Codd defines it, but if you announce that in the beginning of the article I don't see a problem with that. What I would have a problem with is the claim that SQL databases cannot be called relational or their banning from this article. This is not how the term is understood and used by most practicioners and researchers in the field of databases and therefore not how it should be used in an encyclopedia article about the subject. -- [[User:Jan Hidders|Jan Hidders]] 11:34, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
||
::The relational model was codd's idea. He created it. His definitions of relational technically *are* the definitions of relational. [[Codd's 12 rules]] technically are the rules for the definition of a relational database. No one has proposed a different set. The argument that there exists no such DBMS is both irrelevant and incorrect. All of the listed databases could be considered pseudo-relational. I may branch this, and create an article [[Truly-Relational Database Management System]], but this article could still use some clarificaiton. |
|||
Revision as of 23:51, 10 August 2004
The page should be merged with relational database, and this page should be a redirect to that. Or the other way round. Both articles talk the same thing. Jay 15:46, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. As the page on "relational database" already explains there is a difference, and that page is the right spot to explain that. -- Jan Hidders 22:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Truly versus Pseudo-Relational
There are a number of (well, lets just say all, IIRC) DBMSs listed that are not RDBMSs. I've a lot to say on the matter of RDBMSs, and I will be very strict to Codds writings. Some might say that the changes I'm planning on implementing might have POV problems, so if anyone would like to turn this into a discussion beforehand, post here, and I'll hold off making the major changes until I give people a little time to think about it.
- Whether it's really POV depends upon the exact wording, so it's a bit hard to say in advance if what you plan to write is NPOV or not. I suggest you just go ahead and then you'll find out if there are any complaints about NPOVness or not. Personally I would say that if you are going to present Codd's opinion on the matter then that is how you should present it, as Codd's opinion, if only because we are talking about engineering principles here and not so much about scientific facts. The biggest potential problem is probably the strict use of the term "RDBMS" in the sense that Codd defines it, but if you announce that in the beginning of the article I don't see a problem with that. What I would have a problem with is the claim that SQL databases cannot be called relational or their banning from this article. This is not how the term is understood and used by most practicioners and researchers in the field of databases and therefore not how it should be used in an encyclopedia article about the subject. -- Jan Hidders 11:34, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The relational model was codd's idea. He created it. His definitions of relational technically *are* the definitions of relational. Codd's 12 rules technically are the rules for the definition of a relational database. No one has proposed a different set. The argument that there exists no such DBMS is both irrelevant and incorrect. All of the listed databases could be considered pseudo-relational. I may branch this, and create an article Truly-Relational Database Management System, but this article could still use some clarificaiton.