[Taxacom] Wikispecies is not a database: part 3 (after thinkingabout it!)

[Tony.Rees at csiro.au]

Dear Rod,

I note we have not exactly been overwhelmed with evidence supporting your claim. Methinks the emperor may be feeling a little chilly in the evenings.

See http://www.ffrf.org/awards/emperor/ or elsewhere...

Regards - Tony

________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony.Rees at csiro.au [mailto:Tony.Rees at csiro.au]
Sent: 14 August 2009 06:40
To: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
Cc: Mike Sadka; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Wikispecies is not a database: part 3 (after
thinkingabout it!)

Rod Page wrote...

<snip>

1. The notion of a database espoused by Tony and Mike (i.e.,
relational databases with tables with columns and rows) is but one
view of databases, and a view some might say is old fashioned (key-
value databases are the new hotness, there is a generation of
programmers emerging for whom relational databases seem as relevant as
FORTRAN).

</snip>

Maybe ... but tell me this: is there a single major database-driven
biodiversity informatics provider that is NOT using a "conventional"
relational database? My suspicion is that you are talking [b]leading
edge here (if not vapourware) in the present context...

Just my 2 cents...

Tony