Re: database market share 2003

"Joel Garry" <joel-garry_at_home.com> wrote in message news:91884734.0406161355.79f91f77_at_posting.google.com... > "Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message news:<capkk6$1v4a$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com>...
> > "Serge Rielau" <srielau_at_ca.eye-be-em.com> wrote in message
> > news:capg0m$oio$1_at_hanover.torolab.ibm.com...
> > > Noons wrote:
> > > > Given that it is the ONLY commercial RDBMS out there that follows
> > > > most of the relational db 12 rules, it probably deserves to be
better
> > > > represented in education institutions.
> > > "Relational db 12 rules"? Care to elaborate?
> > > At the risk of looking stupid: I draw a blank here.
> > > I only know of normal forms, relational algebra and SQL :-(
> >
> > Stuipid? No, but one can always know more.
> >
> > Here is Chris Date's take on "different relational models" where the 12
> > rules are mentioned in passing.
> >
> > http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/622839.htm

>
> That's a very good article.  Given the thrust and tone of the article,
> I found it quite entertaining that the numerous links to his book in
> the article give "We're sorry, the page you are looking for does not
> exists.[SIC]"

You could mail the editor and get it sorted.

> >
> > More interestingly than those 12 rules however, would be too see which
> > current DBMS most closely resembles say Data & Darwen's proposals for a
> > clean relational database system.

>
> I think putting down a database for having non-relational extensions
> is silly.  It's like saying a sports car isn't any good because it has
> a quality radio.

Not a great analogy. I'ld certainly put down a sports car if it had say a kitchen sink in the boot/trunk.

Regards
Paul Vernon
Business Consulting Services, IBM Global Services Received on Thu Jun 17 2004 - 04:23:12 CDT