Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!cimshop!davidm From: cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Relational Databases Message-ID: Date: 9 Jun 91 21:08:43 GMT References: <6822@vela.acs.oakland.edu> <1991Jun07.063749.7904@chinet.chi.il.us> <1991Jun7.205529.13222@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Sender: davidm@cimshop.UUCP Distribution: comp Organization: Consilium Inc., Mountain View, California Lines: 28 In-reply-to: L.Carl.Pedersen@dartmouth.edu's message of 7 Jun 91 20:55:29 GMT >>>>> On 7 Jun 91 20:55:29 GMT, L.Carl.Pedersen@dartmouth.edu (L. Carl >>>>> Pedersen) said: Carl> This is an observation, not a definition of relational, but I think it's Carl> safe to claim that if a product is truly relational, it should be pretty Carl> easy to translate SQL into the language of that product (though not Carl> necessarily the reverse). Well, maybe not. At least, Dr. E.F. Codd doesn't seem to agree. Judging by his book, I would guess that there things that SQL would allow that a system that is "truly" relational would not. In truth, the language that the system uses doesn't really enter into the question of whether the product is truly relational. If a product is "truly" relational and it supports both SQL and (say) QUEL, then queries in SQL should translate to queries in QUEL and vice versa. The base assumption, though, is that we started with a truly relational system. Carl> These remarks will probably draw a lot of flack. So be it. Flack is such a hard word. I prefer to think of it as creatively seeking the "truth" (tm). ;-) -- ==================================================================== David Masterson Consilium, Inc. (415) 691-6311 640 Clyde Ct. uunet!cimshop!davidm Mtn. View, CA 94043 ==================================================================== "If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"