Why no real RM-DBMS'es
Quote from Erwin on March 28, 2019, 11:31 amQuote from LauriP on March 28, 2019, 9:57 amLet me ask that question in another way: "Is there any research activity going on around TTM, other than by D&D? Or maybe some alternative aproaches?"
Academia doesn't regard TTM as "academic work" so basically they'll take the stance that "there simply is nothing to review" (e.g. I recall a former ICDT chair saying he was "sympathetic" to the TTM "movement" but complained it was all way too light on the formal proofs side). Sometimes an academic takes the bother to put his criticisms in writing (google for criticisms by one Maurice Gittens and responses). Sometimes there are specific circumstances that make D&D's works attract more attention for a while. The introduction of the SQL:2011 standard put the Temporal Data stuff in the spolights (e.g. with LI discussion groups dedicated to the subject) for example. But in general the answer is "no".
And then they are all too happy to review papers on XML-indexing. I read the Maurice Gittens criticism, thanks for the tip! Just to take an example of his critique, it is strange that he talks about tuple id's, that would surely be more of an implementation issue, not part of the model. There seems to be total confusion what an abstract model is supposed to do.
Quote from LauriP on March 28, 2019, 10:15 pmQuote from Dave Voorhis on March 28, 2019, 12:17 pmQuote from Erwin on March 28, 2019, 11:31 amQuote from LauriP on March 28, 2019, 9:57 amLet me ask that question in another way: "Is there any research activity going on around TTM, other than by D&D? Or maybe some alternative aproaches?"
Academia doesn't regard TTM as "academic work" so basically they'll take the stance that "there simply is nothing to review" (e.g. I recall a former ICDT chair saying he was "sympathetic" to the TTM "movement" but complained it was all way too light on the formal proofs side). Sometimes an academic takes the bother to put his criticisms in writing (google for criticisms by one Maurice Gittens and responses). Sometimes there are specific circumstances that make D&D's works attract more attention for a while. The introduction of the SQL:2011 standard put the Temporal Data stuff in the spolights (e.g. with LI discussion groups dedicated to the subject) for example. But in general the answer is "no".
TTM is academic work -- applied work, largely -- but academia is heavily driven by fashion and perspective. For every researcher whose perspective leans toward "formal proofs", there'll be another focused heavily on practical implementations. Indeed, I recall one correspondent who categorically rejected TTM because the presented Tutorial D grammar was incomplete.
It's mainly academic fashion that keeps TTM sidelined. If you want to be funded, today your research needs to focus on machine learning, predictive analytics, Internet of Things, or high performance computing. Next year, it will be something different. Herds of researchers lurch from topic to topic as popularity shifts. They're typically not even interested in the topics they are researching; they're just interested in "doing research" and publishing papers. The topic doesn't matter.
This fad-orientation is really strange and seems so counter productive, but I saw it myself first handed. And OK, if 95% is chasing the next thing (XML indexing in early 2000 and now, whatever), what are the rest doing? Or would that be 100% just following the crowd like lemmings?
95% sounds about right. They're chasing funding, because the more funding you bring in, the less teaching you have to do, and the more likely you are to be positively regarded by management and thus receive promotions, awards, and other benefits. Every university is a business; the more money the employees bring in to offset their salaries, the better. That means researchers are very strongly encouraged to follow the funding, to the point that in some universities, keeping your job depends on it. Right now, there's funding available for machine learning and Internet of Things research. There's no funding -- at least, none that I know of -- for researching the relational model.
The remaining 5% are pursuing their own interests -- sometimes with the support of management, sometimes in spite of it, and sometimes both.
Quote from LauriP on March 28, 2019, 10:15 pmThis fad-orientation is really strange and seems so counter productive, but I saw it myself first handed. And OK, if 95% is chasing the next thing (XML indexing in early 2000 and now, whatever), what are the rest doing? Or would that be 100% just following the crowd like lemmings?
I've never had the occasion to look inside the mind of a lemming. But I wouldn't be surprised if even the lead lemming actually feels like he's just following the directions that his followers are suggesting onto him. Which puts all of them in a strange circular dependency that we understand the consequences of but they don't.
Quote from Dave Voorhis on March 28, 2019, 10:32 pmQuote from LauriP on March 28, 2019, 10:15 pmQuote from Dave Voorhis on March 28, 2019, 12:17 pmQuote from Erwin on March 28, 2019, 11:31 amQuote from LauriP on March 28, 2019, 9:57 amLet me ask that question in another way: "Is there any research activity going on around TTM, other than by D&D? Or maybe some alternative aproaches?"
Academia doesn't regard TTM as "academic work" so basically they'll take the stance that "there simply is nothing to review" (e.g. I recall a former ICDT chair saying he was "sympathetic" to the TTM "movement" but complained it was all way too light on the formal proofs side). Sometimes an academic takes the bother to put his criticisms in writing (google for criticisms by one Maurice Gittens and responses). Sometimes there are specific circumstances that make D&D's works attract more attention for a while. The introduction of the SQL:2011 standard put the Temporal Data stuff in the spolights (e.g. with LI discussion groups dedicated to the subject) for example. But in general the answer is "no".
TTM is academic work -- applied work, largely -- but academia is heavily driven by fashion and perspective. For every researcher whose perspective leans toward "formal proofs", there'll be another focused heavily on practical implementations. Indeed, I recall one correspondent who categorically rejected TTM because the presented Tutorial D grammar was incomplete.
It's mainly academic fashion that keeps TTM sidelined. If you want to be funded, today your research needs to focus on machine learning, predictive analytics, Internet of Things, or high performance computing. Next year, it will be something different. Herds of researchers lurch from topic to topic as popularity shifts. They're typically not even interested in the topics they are researching; they're just interested in "doing research" and publishing papers. The topic doesn't matter.
This fad-orientation is really strange and seems so counter productive, but I saw it myself first handed. And OK, if 95% is chasing the next thing (XML indexing in early 2000 and now, whatever), what are the rest doing? Or would that be 100% just following the crowd like lemmings?
95% sounds about right. They're chasing funding, because the more funding you bring in, the less teaching you have to do, and the more likely you are to be positively regarded by management and thus receive promotions, awards, and other benefits. Every university is a business; the more money the employees bring in to offset their salaries, the better. That means researchers are very strongly encouraged to follow the funding, to the point that in some universities, keeping your job depends on it. Right now, there's funding available for machine learning and Internet of Things research. There's no funding -- at least, none that I know of -- for researching the relational model.
The remaining 5% are pursuing their own interests -- sometimes with the support of management, sometimes in spite of it, and sometimes both.
OK, then be that as it is. How has the interest around this site and those projects listed kept up? Is progress being made?
Quote from LauriP on March 29, 2019, 9:20 pmQuote from Dave Voorhis on March 28, 2019, 10:32 pm...The remaining 5% are pursuing their own interests -- sometimes with the support of management, sometimes in spite of it, and sometimes both.
OK, then be that as it is. How has the interest around this site and those projects listed kept up? Is progress being made?
Whether progress is being made or not depends, I suppose, on how you define "progress".
Speaking only for my project, Rel, I find it useful as a desktop DBMS. I use it for various day-to-day data crunching and storage, the way I used to (grudgingly, and with gritted teeth) use Microsoft Access. I like Rel much better.
I also use it for teaching, both in a Databases course and in a Language Design & Implementation course, where its internals provide examples of parsing, interpreting, etc. Others use it for teaching too.
It gets a small but steady number of downloads; hardly a large number, but steady enough to be worth maintaining. I've achieved a certain amount of professional recognition for it -- "Oh yeah, you're the 'Rel' guy", and the like -- so all things considered it's worth it for me to maintain this site and Rel.