Relational databases, and the Relational Model, are not so called because
their records stand in relation to other records. The Model, and the
subsequent databases, are about relations, which are a long-standing
and precisely defined mathematical concept. So, I'm afraid, you are
actually wrong (in common with many others of course).
I was defending my use of the the phrase "Relational data" (and even
conceded it), not arguing about the meaning of Relational model - and we
call Relational databases so because it does Relational things with
data, things described in the Relational model... but not necessarily
all the 12 things Edgar wanted us/them to conform to before allowing the
term "Relational" - and that's ok... Surely.
Every word I speak in this exchange seems to serve only as food to feed
a next construed difference, so I'll concede everything and return to
the original observation:
Perhaps it's a cultural difference or linguistic weirdness, but in my
tongue "controversial" means having real controversy, two sides to a
coin, often hotly contested. i.e. because there are some people who
believe the Earth to be flat, doesn't make the theory of Gravity a
debated controversy.
If we call anything that have a couple of naysayers a controversy, then
everything is a controversy.
Cheers,
Ryan
PS: You're right about one important thing, this thread must be boring
everyone to bits, so I'll rest the case here. :)
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
