Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!haven!vrdxhq!daitc!daitc.daitc.mil
From: jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil (Jonathan Krueger)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Graphael's GBase
Message-ID: <546@daitc.daitc.mil>
Date: 17 Jun 89 18:01:40 GMT
References: <340@mtcs.UUCP> <790003@hpclmao.HP.COM>
Sender: jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil
Reply-To: jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil (Jonathan Krueger)
Organization: DTIC Special Projects Office (DTIC-SPO), Alexandria VA
Lines: 25

In article <790003@hpclmao.HP.COM>, mao@hpclmao (Mike Ogush) writes:
>Patricia David gave a short introduction in Datamation, May 15, 1989:
>"The advantage of an object database is that it can look at nonstandard
> data sets, such as graphics and large binary files."

If by this Patricia means that less exalted databases can't support
images, she is wholly incorrect.  I've heard similar myths repeated
elsewhere, so she's hardly alone if so.

>"Object database can also look at other databases and treat them as
>objects."

What Patricia means by this, or indeed what anyone might mean by such
a statement, is beyond me.  Making it hard to answer such reasonable
questions as

>Can Gbase achieve that?

Since I don't know what "that" is.  Maybe Patricia knows and will
someday tell us in some form that's clear and correct.  Then we can
decide for ourselves whether it's a good thing to be treated as an
object :-)

-- Jon
--