Re: Looking for a library databse of books
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 02:24:54 GMT
Message-ID: <W5Nah.378939$1T2.3060_at_pd7urf2no>
>>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.
>>From what I can see, they are all
>>trying to coin the next fad word around which to build a career spouting
>>nonsense.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 02:24:54 GMT
Message-ID: <W5Nah.378939$1T2.3060_at_pd7urf2no>
JOG wrote:
> 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. >
p Received on Tue Nov 28 2006 - 03:24:54 CET