This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Databases template. |
|
Computing Template‑class | |||||||
|
Databases NA‑class ( inactive) | |||||||
|
It links to List of relational database management systems twice. I tried to fix that, but my change was reverted without explanation. Can anyone explain why? Indeed, the article has been added to lots of topics; it would've been a good idea to review the template before publishing it so far and wide.
Here are some other problems; I'd fix them, but the reversion of my previous edit and the large "do not change" comment are a little to intimidating:
Let me know how this project is proceeding. -- Mikeblas 02:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
With no objections, I've split "Components" to "Objects", and put "objects" under the implementation line. "Referential Integrity" and "Surrogate Key" still aren't in the template.-- Mikeblas 21:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added "partition". How should "Materialized view" be added? With a dash, after "View"? -- Mikeblas 14:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Is the Database Product listed includes everything.Because I found Cognos Database also exits.
I want to add it after all other comparisons. Any objections? -- GreyCat
The current list of database software implementations is: Caché | db4o | dBASE | Firebird | Helix database | DB2 | Informix | Ingres | InterBase | Microsoft SQL Server | MySQL | OpenLink Virtuoso | Oracle | PostgreSQL | SQLite | Sybase IQ | Sybase | Teradata | Visual FoxPro
Are all of these notable enought to be listed? Cache, db4o, Helix, and Virtuoso seem to have too little market or mindshare to be worthwhile including in a global template. The template shouldn't try to be an exhaustive list of all DB programs.
Comments? Georgewilliamherbert 20:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe that MaxDB should be included. This is one of the few SAP compliant database and one of the very few open source enterprise database. True, that the current version of the article sounds like advertisement. Maybe that's why it is not included? I can try to find the time to improve this article. Mbaudier 14:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I've redesigned a copy of this template on my scratch page, in a way I believe improves the way the products are listed. Discussion is welcome, of course, this page is on my watchlist. Feel free to use it, or improve upon it further. :) -- Limn 17:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me Will henderson 18:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems this list is continually getting added to, with more or less notable products. Should there maybe be some sort of criteria for what is included in this list? For instance the link to Alpha Five, which is basically a sales pitch for that particular product. Jerazol 07:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
What kind of criteria do you have in mind? What you see so far on Alpha Five was not intended to be a sales pitch, it's what I dug up for two editors that were repeatedly marking the article for deletion due to lack of nobility (which they no longer dispute). PeetMoss 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it odd that this template links to "ACID" but not to "Transaction"? I think there might be an issue about inclusion of concepts, too, aside from the product list. -- Mikeblas 18:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there's already some concensus that the existing template is too large. I've put together a smaller version at User:Mikeblas/databases which doesn't use quite as much space. Is there any objection to switching to that layout? -- Mikeblas 12:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe now that the "Database products" section is so much smaller it would make sense to make it a sub-section of "Implementations of database management systems" like "Types of implementations" and "Components" are. Also, the three sub-sections might be re-arranged, with the larger group "Types of implementations" could be moved to the bottom. Just something to make it take up a little bit less space, and maybe make it a little easier to read... Sample here: User:SqlPac/databases SqlPac 03:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
With no objections, I've added Null to Topics in SQL. SqlPac 14:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Since there were no objections to my post on Friday, I went ahead and modified the template slightly. Basically eliminated the third section at the bottom of the template, combining it with the second section. Also rearranged the bottom section to reflect the same format as the top section. SqlPac 18:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW, if space is at a premium, has anyone considered doing something like this? Sample Template. I'm no graphic artist, so this is not the best that could be done, just a random idea for maybe saving a little space on the template. SqlPac 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Suggest adding Codd's 12 rules to the template - possibly under the Concepts sub-heading. SqlPac 15:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Comparison of object-oriented database management systems is confused with comparison of object-relational DMS. Perhaps both categories need to be added
I'm going to try completely reorganising this using template:navbox. The current version is fiddly and very markup-heavy. Chris Cunningham 11:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I recommend that the template NOT blindly put articles that use it into Category:Database management systems as that category is currently very large and some work has been done on subcategories to break it up. For example, I don't think that the articles on SQL keywords and clauses should be put into this category. So, I propose that a new parameter be added to the template such as add category to indicate whether the category should be added. If not specified, the default would be to add it to the category to retain backwards compatibility with existing behaviour. Also, why is it sorting every article it adds to the category by "*"? RedWolf ( talk) 19:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Why exactly is it that the "Implementations" should not be part of this template? I don't really care one way or the other about the "Data"-section you added, but please don't remove parts of the template without giving a reason for this.
Jerazol (
talk) 10:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I got no clue what are you talking about, in regards to the "Implementations" you are referring to. Initially I remove ORM thinking that they are not part of the database at all. But after reading it, I found out that is totally not true, most didn't people don't recognize the object aspect of database because of misunderstanding. So I will try to explain in brief.
Database are most divided into 3 parts. The DBMS (Relational, Distributed and Object).
I think you guys are pretty familar with relational and distributed DBMS. Where Distributed (is the big Parallel Computing part, which has various topics such as: Grid Computing, Cloud Computing, Cluster Computing...etc.) Relational is commonly use with server side scripting like php, cfml, jsp...etc.
Objects are a bit complex
(they are used in
ECMAScript 4.0 Standardization Crisis
Not sure about: J#, J++ and FastCGI uses the object database too?
Simply put it they stored the information in an actual file (.bin) and access it using interfaces. Which is the same method as flat file database. However, since this mechanism is not easily hosted, as these type of database are more commonly use in shopping (iTunes downloading), accounting...etc. Some companies like Microsoft develop runtimes and other extensions on top of SQL for easier access. Other companies like Adobe, choose to download the object as a swf. Firefox on the other hand implant it as a more user friendly method. (aka Ubiquity) < ref>.
I don't why this scope of the database should be removed or eliminated, if Distributed Computing Database is allowed. There is a lot more to it about the different types of database that we haven't discovered, so if you guys only want relational and distributed then this template is totally biased, and it doesn't serve well as a template purpose of simple navigation.
Note: that the describing retrieve as in access is a incorrect nomenclature, but I couldn't really figure out a good computer science term to describe it. -- Ramu50 ( talk) 21:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Give evidence that The Semantic Web isn't considered a form of database. You need to go over with your old ideas on database, database is simply a medium of storage.
Database is simply a collection of information. The range of the flexibility, functions or exprsesions is not limited, in fact you could argue that Database itself might not be a design flaw at this stage of computing. Commonly people think database are just a storage software, but that is true, if it were why design the tree structure database of a Registry keys, why would MIT spend time on classifying the a database informations, its obvious there the design of the current database is probably posing a scalability problem similar to what happen back in the Intel Pentium stage design, whos to say when you implant an interface, a classification or perhaps a middleware in the database for more flexible and cross compatibility (across multiple database) and the structure isn't a database anymore. Who are you to judge what the infrastructure of a daabase can be or can not be.
KnoweldgeBase Database is just a simple way of putting it as an artificially intellgient database, so you can probably process things faster such as (instead of having the need to use Google Crawler to search things through a broad range of algorithm, database should probably consider classifiying their information like a library so things can be easier to find and the range would be smaller, therefore when expressing things are more cleary, concise, coherent, structural..etc. (XML Schema). Also who says database can't be in lightweight form like Cloud Computing.
Main Source: http://en.mimi.hu/computing/database.html
Registry are database.
DLLs are database.
Main Source:
http://en.mimi.hu/computing/database.html
A database can be as simple as a shopping list or as complex as a collection of thousands of sounds, graphics, and related text files. Database software is designed to help users organize such information. Even Sun Microsystems have make the capability of making StarOffice spreadsheet into a flexibile table that can imported and exported, that is not a database? Just because you don't think that is one of the growing technologies, doesn't mean your definition of notability is correct.
http://www.maran.com/dictionary/d/databas/index.html Microsoft Article also states that Access is RDBMS.
A program that helps you manage large collections of information. You can use a database to store, sort, and easily find information. Two popular database programs are Lotus Approach and Microsoft Access. See also FLAT FILE DATABASE and RELATIONAL DATABASE.
The registry database consists of "keys" and "values". A key is a "place" to store a value. A key may store many values, or it may have subkeys, each which store values. The Windows 2000 registry has five top level keys as listed below.
http://www.gtscompanies.com/glosscomp.html
A shared collection of logically related data, designed to meet the information needs of multiple users in an organization. The term database is often erroneously referred to as a synonym for a “database management system (DBMS)”. They are not equivalent. A database is a store of data that describe entities and the relationships between the entities. A database management system is the software mechanism for managing that data.
DBMS definition
DataBase Management System: A software application system that is used to create, maintain, and provide controlled access to user databases. The DBMS masks the physical details of the database storage, so that the application only has to know about the logical characteristics of the data, not how it is stored. Because of this, unlike a flat file, a database makes applications easily portable across (hardware and operating system) platforms. See also: flat file.
Masking is an abstract term for the basic theory of lightweight database (aka Cloud Computing). -- Ramu50 ( talk) 22:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
A random topics, you got a long way to learn. The issue is you are the not able to learn to accept, while the industry already can accept these flexible theories. Its quite obvious your level of understanding doesn't show your knowledge on computing science. Middleware interface implementations is your so-called random organizations. Do you even understand anything about computer science.
I do wonder what you put the Wikipedia:NPOV policy, when the information I talk about is just a bunch of possible methodologies that the industry is researching on I don't know what is your problem of not willing to accept since the information are not synthesis since and I am not the only one saying it,
I've seen a lot of template that deals with topics that are not easy to define, therefore people put principle topics on there for guidance, so how is my topics irrelevant.
e.g.
Template:Parallel_computing
I have the right to put what I think is correct and provide guidance for others. That being said, the guidance does the serve the purpose of navigation which is what template are meant to be.
By the way the Database Middleware, I though is a possible theories, but I didn't know there was already something out there. Read this article.
Database Middleware.
Note that SearchSOA own by TechTarget has 6 million worldwide subscribers, so don't even try to pull off for notability and other irrelevant policies. -- Ramu50 ( talk) 22:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
See article by Tim Berners-Lee [2] "The semantic web data model is very directly connected with the model of relational databases (...) Indeed, one of the main driving forces for the Semantic web, has always been the expression, on the Web, of the vast amount of relational database information in a way that can be processsed by machines.". This appears to clearly belong on the template. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 01:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
A knowledge base is usually implemented on a database, but so does every other system that has lots of text that needs to be queried, like inventory management applications. I couldn't find sources stating if knowledge bases are actual databases per se. Not sure if it belongs on the template, Ramu50, can you present some source explaining the link between knowledge bases and databases? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 01:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
This just looks a concept related to databases, even if it's very loosely related... It probably belongs on the template. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 01:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Example of KnowledgeBase Database, DNA database, documentation database. http://n1.cs.fiu.edu/SemanticWrapper.ppt#317,4,Features of Semantic Wrapper
Can function as a stand-alone application and/or be plugged into a hetergenous mult-database system
http://n1.cs.fiu.edu/SemanticWrapper.ppt#261,7,Semantic Data Model Benefits (Cont.) -- Ramu50 ( talk) 02:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
DLLs are absolutely not databases. DLLs are executable images, almost identical to EXEs except for a flag bit that says "this is a DLL." Does Ramu50 also claim that EXEs are databases?
Ramu50 quotes an article (itself unreferenced) that says "A database can be as simple as a shopping list..." Well, yes, I could store a shopping list in a simple database consisting of one table with one text field per row. Or in a text file created with ed, for that matter. However I think you would have a tough time convincing your "Data bases 201" instructor that this was a database whose implementation should earn you credit for your class project.
The Windows registry is something of a corner case. It can be viewed as a database; it certainly is a hierarchical data store providing a naming mechanism for each level of the hierarchy. However one hallmark of most databases is that someone defines a set of tables, and the fields or columns in each table are well defined. The Windows registry is nothing like that; its low-level structure is left completely up to each user or client program. It is really much more like "a file system for very small files" - this is a quote from Brian Willman, one of its architects.
Oh, of course you are going to say that you can consider file systems as databases too. And really, this has much more credibility than the claim of "shopping lists." But if you start listing file systems like FAT, NTFS, ext3, ODS-2, etc., in this template you are going to be overruled. Similarly for flat text files.
"Database is simply a collection of information." So any simple data structure in memory like the Windows KPROCESS or IRP is a "database" to you? How about a stack? A FIFO doubly-linked list? Nonsense!
It is true that when complex subjects like databases are taught, simple examples like "shopping lists" are used in the first lectures. But not because anyone considers them "databases." They are used simply as a way of gently introducing the student to what may seem to be an intimidating subject. These simple examples are quickly left behind once their usefulness is outgrown.
If you insist that "database is simply a collection of information", this really does include things like flat files, file systems, and everything in between... and you have just diluted the term "database" so much that it no longer has any useful meaning.
In any case it is not the purpose of a template to be all-inclusive, to list everything that one editor thinks might conceivably be considered related to the topic. Jeh ( talk) 08:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Well for the me I think of dll ability to store icons as a database. If it wasn't a databse, then the concept of In-memory database meaning loading a mini-database into memory wouldn't even exists thus the idea of cloud computing (which does focus on the concept of lightweight database wouldn't even exists today). I don't know what you even brought things like Windows KPROCESS, IRP and FIFO doubly-linked list, they have no mechanism of a database.
Semantic Web is considered a form of database, because the artifical intelligence of classification can build the database into a tree-structure system, this in turns can speed up the SEO.
KnowledgeBase is database, because of a capability of analytical. If says the current database is a database, then let me ask you how is a database different a spreadsheet, a garbage can. Because they are just pile of information that classify things unwisely. Those mechanism of things like group by, order by in SQL work well in Buisness Intelligence, but for things like biochemistry it is totally useless, say a research want to find a listing a protein that can heal the skin very fast, he search for find a list of protein with healing capabilities, then you are telling me that the database response by giving a mixture of biohazard protein, and pig protein is ok? Yea very smart of you to invent something that can do its job, but because the lack of classifications or methodologies you use in a database it kills people instead of healing people.
On a higher-level of study if the database only has those simple function, then when you impor those information into a CAD simulation programs, it would quite obviously lack (the footnotes ability of letting users know the info is biohazard, acidic, dangerously radioactive...etc.) Putting it on a more realistic scale, if the database contains all types of protein including life from other planets, then you assign virus is null, when virus' protein can give you the best anwer. Thus you will NEVER find the best answer, and the effiency will always be limited and if a newer species is found under Kingdom virus, the database ability remains to be rather bias because it considered all other information to be null when analytical information can possibly map out the simple information as a Venn diagram, a flow chart, an algorithm...etc. -- Ramu50 ( talk) 18:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
And why would I want to reveal my full education to others that I don't know, questioning things on Wikpeida:Adminastrators' Board and on irrelevant talk page, I should of report both of guys to other adnminastrators. --
Ramu50 (
talk) 21:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you asking for the conflict of ATAPI to be brought again or what.
Any yet despite that you seem to have hatred against what other has to say about things when you alone already violated the
Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. Prejudice against someone opinion. Reporting Georgewilliamherbert is totally acceptable to Wikipedia and legally if I want to for racial discrimination
He's claiming deeper knowledge of computer architecture but not sourcing claims. This is an area which I've studied and worked in professionally and he seems to just be spouting nonsense so far. He could be a non-native-english-speaking research grad student who's just not communicating effectively in english or something, but he's not listening to me, and I can't protect the template when I'm involved in a content dispute on it etc
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Uninvolved_admin_on_Template:Databases
-- Ramu50 ( talk) 21:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me the locus of the dispute is that some editors want to extend the template beyond relational databases, and others oppose. Probably the best thing to do is to rename it to "relational databases", as not to mix too many things in the same template. VG ☎ 08:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
In nobody opposes, on a few days I will create Template:Relational databases. When I have splitted everything relational-related, I'll cleanup this template so that it mostly links to lists of stuff and to the other templates, as a general template should do. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 23:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Template talk:Database implementations and models#new -- Ramu50 ( talk) 21:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The bottom bar here says "Database products: Object-oriented (comparison) · Relational (comparison) · Document-oriented".
"Object-oriented" links to "List of object database management systems" -- systems like db4o and ZODB. "comparison" links to "Comparison of object-relational database management systems" -- systems like Oracle and PostgreSQL.
These are completely different, and I'm not sure why they're presented in a way to make OODB and ORDBMS sound similar. How can we fix this?
Oh, I see there is a "Comparison of object database management systems" page. Could we simply add a fourth section to the bottom bar, so Object and Object-relational are separate?
This relatively new editor has, just today, taken it upon himself to
This may or may not be a reasonable thing to do - I'm not an SME here. But somebody who is an SME needs to take a look at this activity and see if this obviously highly motivated person needs to have a bit of brake applied. Particularly since his contributions show utterly no participation in Talk pages for any of the SQL-related pages. Jeh ( talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It is not immediately clear to me what is the difference between the two templates Template:Database and Template:Databases which have very similar names. Do anyone have any suggestion on how to clarify that? Sauer202 ( talk) 21:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Databases template. |
|
Computing Template‑class | |||||||
|
Databases NA‑class ( inactive) | |||||||
|
It links to List of relational database management systems twice. I tried to fix that, but my change was reverted without explanation. Can anyone explain why? Indeed, the article has been added to lots of topics; it would've been a good idea to review the template before publishing it so far and wide.
Here are some other problems; I'd fix them, but the reversion of my previous edit and the large "do not change" comment are a little to intimidating:
Let me know how this project is proceeding. -- Mikeblas 02:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
With no objections, I've split "Components" to "Objects", and put "objects" under the implementation line. "Referential Integrity" and "Surrogate Key" still aren't in the template.-- Mikeblas 21:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added "partition". How should "Materialized view" be added? With a dash, after "View"? -- Mikeblas 14:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Is the Database Product listed includes everything.Because I found Cognos Database also exits.
I want to add it after all other comparisons. Any objections? -- GreyCat
The current list of database software implementations is: Caché | db4o | dBASE | Firebird | Helix database | DB2 | Informix | Ingres | InterBase | Microsoft SQL Server | MySQL | OpenLink Virtuoso | Oracle | PostgreSQL | SQLite | Sybase IQ | Sybase | Teradata | Visual FoxPro
Are all of these notable enought to be listed? Cache, db4o, Helix, and Virtuoso seem to have too little market or mindshare to be worthwhile including in a global template. The template shouldn't try to be an exhaustive list of all DB programs.
Comments? Georgewilliamherbert 20:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe that MaxDB should be included. This is one of the few SAP compliant database and one of the very few open source enterprise database. True, that the current version of the article sounds like advertisement. Maybe that's why it is not included? I can try to find the time to improve this article. Mbaudier 14:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I've redesigned a copy of this template on my scratch page, in a way I believe improves the way the products are listed. Discussion is welcome, of course, this page is on my watchlist. Feel free to use it, or improve upon it further. :) -- Limn 17:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me Will henderson 18:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems this list is continually getting added to, with more or less notable products. Should there maybe be some sort of criteria for what is included in this list? For instance the link to Alpha Five, which is basically a sales pitch for that particular product. Jerazol 07:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
What kind of criteria do you have in mind? What you see so far on Alpha Five was not intended to be a sales pitch, it's what I dug up for two editors that were repeatedly marking the article for deletion due to lack of nobility (which they no longer dispute). PeetMoss 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it odd that this template links to "ACID" but not to "Transaction"? I think there might be an issue about inclusion of concepts, too, aside from the product list. -- Mikeblas 18:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there's already some concensus that the existing template is too large. I've put together a smaller version at User:Mikeblas/databases which doesn't use quite as much space. Is there any objection to switching to that layout? -- Mikeblas 12:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe now that the "Database products" section is so much smaller it would make sense to make it a sub-section of "Implementations of database management systems" like "Types of implementations" and "Components" are. Also, the three sub-sections might be re-arranged, with the larger group "Types of implementations" could be moved to the bottom. Just something to make it take up a little bit less space, and maybe make it a little easier to read... Sample here: User:SqlPac/databases SqlPac 03:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
With no objections, I've added Null to Topics in SQL. SqlPac 14:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Since there were no objections to my post on Friday, I went ahead and modified the template slightly. Basically eliminated the third section at the bottom of the template, combining it with the second section. Also rearranged the bottom section to reflect the same format as the top section. SqlPac 18:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW, if space is at a premium, has anyone considered doing something like this? Sample Template. I'm no graphic artist, so this is not the best that could be done, just a random idea for maybe saving a little space on the template. SqlPac 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Suggest adding Codd's 12 rules to the template - possibly under the Concepts sub-heading. SqlPac 15:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Comparison of object-oriented database management systems is confused with comparison of object-relational DMS. Perhaps both categories need to be added
I'm going to try completely reorganising this using template:navbox. The current version is fiddly and very markup-heavy. Chris Cunningham 11:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I recommend that the template NOT blindly put articles that use it into Category:Database management systems as that category is currently very large and some work has been done on subcategories to break it up. For example, I don't think that the articles on SQL keywords and clauses should be put into this category. So, I propose that a new parameter be added to the template such as add category to indicate whether the category should be added. If not specified, the default would be to add it to the category to retain backwards compatibility with existing behaviour. Also, why is it sorting every article it adds to the category by "*"? RedWolf ( talk) 19:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Why exactly is it that the "Implementations" should not be part of this template? I don't really care one way or the other about the "Data"-section you added, but please don't remove parts of the template without giving a reason for this.
Jerazol (
talk) 10:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I got no clue what are you talking about, in regards to the "Implementations" you are referring to. Initially I remove ORM thinking that they are not part of the database at all. But after reading it, I found out that is totally not true, most didn't people don't recognize the object aspect of database because of misunderstanding. So I will try to explain in brief.
Database are most divided into 3 parts. The DBMS (Relational, Distributed and Object).
I think you guys are pretty familar with relational and distributed DBMS. Where Distributed (is the big Parallel Computing part, which has various topics such as: Grid Computing, Cloud Computing, Cluster Computing...etc.) Relational is commonly use with server side scripting like php, cfml, jsp...etc.
Objects are a bit complex
(they are used in
ECMAScript 4.0 Standardization Crisis
Not sure about: J#, J++ and FastCGI uses the object database too?
Simply put it they stored the information in an actual file (.bin) and access it using interfaces. Which is the same method as flat file database. However, since this mechanism is not easily hosted, as these type of database are more commonly use in shopping (iTunes downloading), accounting...etc. Some companies like Microsoft develop runtimes and other extensions on top of SQL for easier access. Other companies like Adobe, choose to download the object as a swf. Firefox on the other hand implant it as a more user friendly method. (aka Ubiquity) < ref>.
I don't why this scope of the database should be removed or eliminated, if Distributed Computing Database is allowed. There is a lot more to it about the different types of database that we haven't discovered, so if you guys only want relational and distributed then this template is totally biased, and it doesn't serve well as a template purpose of simple navigation.
Note: that the describing retrieve as in access is a incorrect nomenclature, but I couldn't really figure out a good computer science term to describe it. -- Ramu50 ( talk) 21:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Give evidence that The Semantic Web isn't considered a form of database. You need to go over with your old ideas on database, database is simply a medium of storage.
Database is simply a collection of information. The range of the flexibility, functions or exprsesions is not limited, in fact you could argue that Database itself might not be a design flaw at this stage of computing. Commonly people think database are just a storage software, but that is true, if it were why design the tree structure database of a Registry keys, why would MIT spend time on classifying the a database informations, its obvious there the design of the current database is probably posing a scalability problem similar to what happen back in the Intel Pentium stage design, whos to say when you implant an interface, a classification or perhaps a middleware in the database for more flexible and cross compatibility (across multiple database) and the structure isn't a database anymore. Who are you to judge what the infrastructure of a daabase can be or can not be.
KnoweldgeBase Database is just a simple way of putting it as an artificially intellgient database, so you can probably process things faster such as (instead of having the need to use Google Crawler to search things through a broad range of algorithm, database should probably consider classifiying their information like a library so things can be easier to find and the range would be smaller, therefore when expressing things are more cleary, concise, coherent, structural..etc. (XML Schema). Also who says database can't be in lightweight form like Cloud Computing.
Main Source: http://en.mimi.hu/computing/database.html
Registry are database.
DLLs are database.
Main Source:
http://en.mimi.hu/computing/database.html
A database can be as simple as a shopping list or as complex as a collection of thousands of sounds, graphics, and related text files. Database software is designed to help users organize such information. Even Sun Microsystems have make the capability of making StarOffice spreadsheet into a flexibile table that can imported and exported, that is not a database? Just because you don't think that is one of the growing technologies, doesn't mean your definition of notability is correct.
http://www.maran.com/dictionary/d/databas/index.html Microsoft Article also states that Access is RDBMS.
A program that helps you manage large collections of information. You can use a database to store, sort, and easily find information. Two popular database programs are Lotus Approach and Microsoft Access. See also FLAT FILE DATABASE and RELATIONAL DATABASE.
The registry database consists of "keys" and "values". A key is a "place" to store a value. A key may store many values, or it may have subkeys, each which store values. The Windows 2000 registry has five top level keys as listed below.
http://www.gtscompanies.com/glosscomp.html
A shared collection of logically related data, designed to meet the information needs of multiple users in an organization. The term database is often erroneously referred to as a synonym for a “database management system (DBMS)”. They are not equivalent. A database is a store of data that describe entities and the relationships between the entities. A database management system is the software mechanism for managing that data.
DBMS definition
DataBase Management System: A software application system that is used to create, maintain, and provide controlled access to user databases. The DBMS masks the physical details of the database storage, so that the application only has to know about the logical characteristics of the data, not how it is stored. Because of this, unlike a flat file, a database makes applications easily portable across (hardware and operating system) platforms. See also: flat file.
Masking is an abstract term for the basic theory of lightweight database (aka Cloud Computing). -- Ramu50 ( talk) 22:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
A random topics, you got a long way to learn. The issue is you are the not able to learn to accept, while the industry already can accept these flexible theories. Its quite obvious your level of understanding doesn't show your knowledge on computing science. Middleware interface implementations is your so-called random organizations. Do you even understand anything about computer science.
I do wonder what you put the Wikipedia:NPOV policy, when the information I talk about is just a bunch of possible methodologies that the industry is researching on I don't know what is your problem of not willing to accept since the information are not synthesis since and I am not the only one saying it,
I've seen a lot of template that deals with topics that are not easy to define, therefore people put principle topics on there for guidance, so how is my topics irrelevant.
e.g.
Template:Parallel_computing
I have the right to put what I think is correct and provide guidance for others. That being said, the guidance does the serve the purpose of navigation which is what template are meant to be.
By the way the Database Middleware, I though is a possible theories, but I didn't know there was already something out there. Read this article.
Database Middleware.
Note that SearchSOA own by TechTarget has 6 million worldwide subscribers, so don't even try to pull off for notability and other irrelevant policies. -- Ramu50 ( talk) 22:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
See article by Tim Berners-Lee [2] "The semantic web data model is very directly connected with the model of relational databases (...) Indeed, one of the main driving forces for the Semantic web, has always been the expression, on the Web, of the vast amount of relational database information in a way that can be processsed by machines.". This appears to clearly belong on the template. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 01:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
A knowledge base is usually implemented on a database, but so does every other system that has lots of text that needs to be queried, like inventory management applications. I couldn't find sources stating if knowledge bases are actual databases per se. Not sure if it belongs on the template, Ramu50, can you present some source explaining the link between knowledge bases and databases? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 01:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
This just looks a concept related to databases, even if it's very loosely related... It probably belongs on the template. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 01:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Example of KnowledgeBase Database, DNA database, documentation database. http://n1.cs.fiu.edu/SemanticWrapper.ppt#317,4,Features of Semantic Wrapper
Can function as a stand-alone application and/or be plugged into a hetergenous mult-database system
http://n1.cs.fiu.edu/SemanticWrapper.ppt#261,7,Semantic Data Model Benefits (Cont.) -- Ramu50 ( talk) 02:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
DLLs are absolutely not databases. DLLs are executable images, almost identical to EXEs except for a flag bit that says "this is a DLL." Does Ramu50 also claim that EXEs are databases?
Ramu50 quotes an article (itself unreferenced) that says "A database can be as simple as a shopping list..." Well, yes, I could store a shopping list in a simple database consisting of one table with one text field per row. Or in a text file created with ed, for that matter. However I think you would have a tough time convincing your "Data bases 201" instructor that this was a database whose implementation should earn you credit for your class project.
The Windows registry is something of a corner case. It can be viewed as a database; it certainly is a hierarchical data store providing a naming mechanism for each level of the hierarchy. However one hallmark of most databases is that someone defines a set of tables, and the fields or columns in each table are well defined. The Windows registry is nothing like that; its low-level structure is left completely up to each user or client program. It is really much more like "a file system for very small files" - this is a quote from Brian Willman, one of its architects.
Oh, of course you are going to say that you can consider file systems as databases too. And really, this has much more credibility than the claim of "shopping lists." But if you start listing file systems like FAT, NTFS, ext3, ODS-2, etc., in this template you are going to be overruled. Similarly for flat text files.
"Database is simply a collection of information." So any simple data structure in memory like the Windows KPROCESS or IRP is a "database" to you? How about a stack? A FIFO doubly-linked list? Nonsense!
It is true that when complex subjects like databases are taught, simple examples like "shopping lists" are used in the first lectures. But not because anyone considers them "databases." They are used simply as a way of gently introducing the student to what may seem to be an intimidating subject. These simple examples are quickly left behind once their usefulness is outgrown.
If you insist that "database is simply a collection of information", this really does include things like flat files, file systems, and everything in between... and you have just diluted the term "database" so much that it no longer has any useful meaning.
In any case it is not the purpose of a template to be all-inclusive, to list everything that one editor thinks might conceivably be considered related to the topic. Jeh ( talk) 08:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Well for the me I think of dll ability to store icons as a database. If it wasn't a databse, then the concept of In-memory database meaning loading a mini-database into memory wouldn't even exists thus the idea of cloud computing (which does focus on the concept of lightweight database wouldn't even exists today). I don't know what you even brought things like Windows KPROCESS, IRP and FIFO doubly-linked list, they have no mechanism of a database.
Semantic Web is considered a form of database, because the artifical intelligence of classification can build the database into a tree-structure system, this in turns can speed up the SEO.
KnowledgeBase is database, because of a capability of analytical. If says the current database is a database, then let me ask you how is a database different a spreadsheet, a garbage can. Because they are just pile of information that classify things unwisely. Those mechanism of things like group by, order by in SQL work well in Buisness Intelligence, but for things like biochemistry it is totally useless, say a research want to find a listing a protein that can heal the skin very fast, he search for find a list of protein with healing capabilities, then you are telling me that the database response by giving a mixture of biohazard protein, and pig protein is ok? Yea very smart of you to invent something that can do its job, but because the lack of classifications or methodologies you use in a database it kills people instead of healing people.
On a higher-level of study if the database only has those simple function, then when you impor those information into a CAD simulation programs, it would quite obviously lack (the footnotes ability of letting users know the info is biohazard, acidic, dangerously radioactive...etc.) Putting it on a more realistic scale, if the database contains all types of protein including life from other planets, then you assign virus is null, when virus' protein can give you the best anwer. Thus you will NEVER find the best answer, and the effiency will always be limited and if a newer species is found under Kingdom virus, the database ability remains to be rather bias because it considered all other information to be null when analytical information can possibly map out the simple information as a Venn diagram, a flow chart, an algorithm...etc. -- Ramu50 ( talk) 18:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
And why would I want to reveal my full education to others that I don't know, questioning things on Wikpeida:Adminastrators' Board and on irrelevant talk page, I should of report both of guys to other adnminastrators. --
Ramu50 (
talk) 21:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you asking for the conflict of ATAPI to be brought again or what.
Any yet despite that you seem to have hatred against what other has to say about things when you alone already violated the
Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. Prejudice against someone opinion. Reporting Georgewilliamherbert is totally acceptable to Wikipedia and legally if I want to for racial discrimination
He's claiming deeper knowledge of computer architecture but not sourcing claims. This is an area which I've studied and worked in professionally and he seems to just be spouting nonsense so far. He could be a non-native-english-speaking research grad student who's just not communicating effectively in english or something, but he's not listening to me, and I can't protect the template when I'm involved in a content dispute on it etc
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Uninvolved_admin_on_Template:Databases
-- Ramu50 ( talk) 21:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me the locus of the dispute is that some editors want to extend the template beyond relational databases, and others oppose. Probably the best thing to do is to rename it to "relational databases", as not to mix too many things in the same template. VG ☎ 08:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
In nobody opposes, on a few days I will create Template:Relational databases. When I have splitted everything relational-related, I'll cleanup this template so that it mostly links to lists of stuff and to the other templates, as a general template should do. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 23:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Template talk:Database implementations and models#new -- Ramu50 ( talk) 21:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The bottom bar here says "Database products: Object-oriented (comparison) · Relational (comparison) · Document-oriented".
"Object-oriented" links to "List of object database management systems" -- systems like db4o and ZODB. "comparison" links to "Comparison of object-relational database management systems" -- systems like Oracle and PostgreSQL.
These are completely different, and I'm not sure why they're presented in a way to make OODB and ORDBMS sound similar. How can we fix this?
Oh, I see there is a "Comparison of object database management systems" page. Could we simply add a fourth section to the bottom bar, so Object and Object-relational are separate?
This relatively new editor has, just today, taken it upon himself to
This may or may not be a reasonable thing to do - I'm not an SME here. But somebody who is an SME needs to take a look at this activity and see if this obviously highly motivated person needs to have a bit of brake applied. Particularly since his contributions show utterly no participation in Talk pages for any of the SQL-related pages. Jeh ( talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It is not immediately clear to me what is the difference between the two templates Template:Database and Template:Databases which have very similar names. Do anyone have any suggestion on how to clarify that? Sauer202 ( talk) 21:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)