> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
> Sent: 21 June, 2006 06:12
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: [NGC4LIB] Are "good enough" standards ok?
>
> Houghton,Andrew wrote:
> > You cannot display a SQL index since it is an internal
> mechanism that
> > is used in relation to the data stored in the tables in
> your database.
> > This doesn't mean you cannot support "index browsing".
> >
> But why do so many SQL-based applications not do it?
You would have to ask the developers of the specific application
why they don't include index browsing. The point being that it
is not a limitation of the underlying relational database.
> >>Further, SQL doesn't support structured fields. A field
> content cannot
> >>have subfields, or rather, SQL has no tool to do anything with them.
> >
> > This is just not true. Lets take the MARC standard. Each
> field has a
> > one to many relationship with its subfields. In a
> relational database
> > this *could be* modeled with two tables.
> > This may not be the best database architecture for modeling
> MARC in a
> > relation database,
>
> Sorry, but shouldn't "next generation" be aiming at the best,
> and not compromise using inappropriate standards (just
> because they are standards)?
I specifically added stars around "could be" since I wasn't proposing
a solution for implementation of MARC in a relational database. The
point I was making was structured fields are supported when appropriate
data normalization techniques are applied.
I also pointed out, without detail, that the trivial data normalization
I applied might not be the best relational database architecture. Simply
it will not scale. This doesn't mean, as you suggest, that a relational
database is an inappropriate standard to use. For example, OCLC's WorldCat
uses the Oracle relational database which comprises 60+ million records.
Proper database architecture can go a long way...
Andy.
Received on Wed Jun 21 2006 - 08:57:46 EDT