Re: Semi-structured data

>>>>Semistructured data has an obvious meaning, usefulness and applications
>>>
>>>	That being?  Precisely, please.
>>
>>Well, you can use some reading, can't you ?

I'm sure you can find easily a CS bibliography on semi-structured data.

> The reason I ask you instead of Google is that Google returns
> nothing useful.
>

Or maybe you are utterly unskilled at researching a subject for bibliography.

>
>

>>Semi-structured means whose structure is only partially exposed to the 
>>processing application (where application can be database systems, 
>>client app, middleware, etc), i.e. it has hidden structure as far as the 
>>application is concerned.

It means that the system can work with partial knowledge of the whole structure. You don't get to decree what is "semistructured" and what is not. The label associated with definition that I gave has already imposed itself in common usage both in the CS community, and the software engineering practice.

Unless you can claim that you have the perfect sense of English language, and the rest of the CS community and the industry simply doesn't, then arguing over the chosen name is trolling.

Even in that case all you can do is whine about the label, but not about the content under the label, and you can do that all day, but, of course, nobody will notice you, and it ain't gonna change just because you think it is a poorly chosen name.

However the definition is entirely valid, and the concept is both useful, has tons of applications in practice, and is an active area of research.

You also have an option to call it

    LeandrosChosenNameOfWhatTheRestOfTheWorldCallsSemiStructuredData and be happy.

> This is precisely what we mean by scalar values and types.
> Ergo, as we set out to demonstrate, it is an useless concept.
>

I don't think you have a clue what is scalar value and type unless you chose to read a proper book on type theory recently, but that's entirely another discussion.

>
>

>>>>which is accepted by the overwhelming majority of CS community.
>>>
>>>	That says nothing about its preciseness or usefulness.  
>>
>>It says something very precise about the legitimacy of wannabe trolls on 
>>c.d.t who want to wave their magic hands and pretend there's some kind 
>>of truth or useful knowledge in their baseless claims.

Or maybe because you don't want to read, and it is convenient to ignore it. Fine.

>

>>>The
>>>majority of the CS community uses Oracle or MS SQL Server, or some
>>>other SQL flavour, on MS Windows; does not use functional programming
>>>nor relational database systems nor formal methods.
>>
>>Falsehoods all over the place. There's no significant published research 
>>in database theory or any other branch of CS that "uses" Oracle or MS 
>>SQL Server, and all the other claims are trivially false and
>>irrelevant.

Non-sequitur.

>
>

>>Who decreed that there's any good in the majority of CS community
>>using FP languages ?

You're broad picture is patently false in both the essentials and the details, and is not done in good will, plus you have absolutely no standing to "paint a broad picture of the CS community".

 >>Just grow up, will you ? Comp.database.theory has been in useless
 >>troll mode for months now, and you can't in all honesty blame it all
 >>on Pick fans.
 >
 >
 > 	Don’t feed the trolls.
 >
 > 	Unless you yourself is the said one.
 >
 > 	Does not accepting mumbo-jumbo qualifies as trolling?
 >
 >

I don't feed the troll, I'm just correcting a matter of fact issue. You can troll all you like regardless, and I ain't gonna do a thing about it. Received on Fri Jun 25 2004 - 01:56:05 CEST