Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!apple!rutgers!att!ulysses!swfc
From: swfc@ulysses.att.com (Shu-Wie F Chen)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Is RDBMS unproven technology? (Flames to follow....)
Message-ID: <13580@ulysses.att.com>
Date: 13 Aug 90 14:46:22 GMT
References: <1073@ashton.UUCP> <10371@sybase.sybase.com> <13532@ulysses.att.com>  <10419@sybase.sybase.com> <13545@ulysses.att.com> <10494@sybase.sybase.com> <1809@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au>
Sender: netnews@ulysses.att.com
Reply-To: swfc@ulysses.att.com (Shu-Wie F Chen)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Lines: 31

In article <1809@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au>, ghm@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au (Geoff
Miller) writes:
|>tim@ohday.sybase.com (Tim Wood) writes:
|>
|>>Making it very simple:
|>>The relational model eases application development.  This tends to
|>>encourage application development.  So the app. programmer and
|>>the users benefit: the users get more needs met because
|>>the app. programmer's job is easier because the relational model makes
|>>app. writing easier.
|>
|>I would agree with Tim, and particularly with his choice of words  -  
|>"relational model" rather than "RDBMS".  One can (and we have) successfully
|>implement databases designed using the relational model without using an
|>RDBMS, and we still obtain the advantages which Tim points out.  I have 
|>been concerned for some years now that the marketers of so-called 
|>"relational" products have pursuaded a gullible user community into thinking
|>that a relational model can only be implemented using an RDBMS, which 
|>simply is not so!
|>

Won Kim recently defined an object-oriented database to be a database
that implements the object-oriented model (which he kind of defined ;-).
Following this logic, isn't a RDBMS a database that implements the
relational model?

*swfc