I know - go do a google search yourself, as I did - look at the various interpretations - you will see this narrow view. Not mine - just reporting. You didn't quote the bits where I said just this - that there ARE different points of view.
But this fact - that we can use DDS to generate and modify tables - this is held up by many to say that this is NOT a relational system. My friend, Dave Odom, is one who tried to tell us this. I don't always agree with him, of course.
Vern
----- Original Message -----
Rule 0 may already be broken
Rule 0: The system must qualify as relational, as a database, and as a management system.
Does IBM i DB not qualify as relational? As a database? As a management system?
since there is a non-relational way to manage the database.
Isn't that a rather narrow interpretation of the rule? And a narrow interpretation of a management system?
-Nathan
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
