Re: Looking for a library databse of books

Bob Badour wrote:
> JOG wrote:
>
> > Bob Badour wrote:
> >
> >>servermachine_at_gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>I regard a database as a set of related files that are created and
> >>>managed by a DBMS, whereas a dataset would be a data file or collection
> >>>or interrelated data.
> >>>
> >>>Bob Badour wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>servermachine_at_gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>I should correct this to: Looking for a library dataset of books
> >>>>>
> >>>>>servermachine_at_gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Hey all.
> >>>>>>I'm trying to get hold of a database of books, preferably in sql,
> >>>>>>access or something easily convertable to those.
> >>>>>>The database should be like a library's, with records containing title,
> >>>>>>author, publisher, year, isbn, dewey..etc
> >>>>>>Can anyone help me find one?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>TIA
> >>>>
> >>>>I am curious what difference you think exists between a database and a
> >>>>dataset.
> >>
> >>If a database with hundreds of relations is in a single physical file,
> >>does that make it no longer a database but a dataset instead?
> >
> > I see a database as a logical encoding of statements of fact with
> > appropriate schema and integrity constraints, whereas a dataset is
> > merely a bag of 'data items'.
>
> Any given database is physical, logical and conceptual. A database is a
> database regardless of the logical data model.
>
>
> Hence when I hear the term database I see
> > it as referring to the strict definition of data as used on this board
> > and in DBMS as a whole. In contrast when I hear the term 'data set' I
> > semantically connect it to the overly-general and wooly computer
> > science use of the term data.
>
> As far as I know, the computer science use of the term data means
> information represented suitably for machine processing of some sort.
> Granted, our field is full of Humpty Dumpty people who make up all sorts
> of absurd meanings for words.
>
> But what is overly-general or wooly about the standard definition?
>
>
> > I am still unconvinced there is adequate consensus on terminology
> > across the field.
>
> I find the standard definitions generally adequate. We won't get any
> consensus while we continue to tolerate the self-aggrandizing ignorants
> making up new meanings left and right.

I find these to be a loud minority. We should be far more concerned about the amount of people who are not self-aggrandizing but merely do not realise they are ignorant.

> From what I can see, they are all
> trying to coin the next fad word around which to build a career spouting
> nonsense.

And that's been the way of things since the dawn of time (no pun intended dawn). I have however heard of a couple of projects currently receiving funding, which hope to remedy the problem by providing a central online source for the validation of established scientific knowledge. They are iterative and peer reviewed, serving as a repository for accepted assertions and the argumentation behind them, and aim to stop people reinventing wheels or passing off previously discredited approaches under a new name. I am relatively optimistic that eventually one such venture will have some sort of impact. I think Doug Engelbart would call them DKRs. Received on Tue Nov 28 2006 - 02:28:57 CET