Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!

From: Darren Duncan
Subject: Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!
Date: ,
Msg-id: 50242798.6090707@darrenduncan.net
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!  (Jeff Davis)
List: pgsql-advocacy

Tree view

What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!  (Chris Travers, )
 Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!  (Jeff Davis, )
  Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!  (Simon Riggs, )
   Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!  (Pavel Stehule, )
    Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!  (Josh Berkus, )
     Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!  ("Kevin Grittner", )
      Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!  (Fernando Fontana, )
      Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
     Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!  (Dimitri Fontaine, )
  Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!  (Darren Duncan, )
  Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!  (Thomas Kellerer, )
   Re: Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!  (Chris Travers, )

Maybe call it "extensible-relational", which should be inclusive enough to
include things like user-defined types / polymorphism / overloading / etc but
should still put the emphasis on "relational".

Also, the above 2 words essentially rhyme / have 4 syllables each.

Personally I consider "relational" by itself to include user-defined types et
al; however I support the longer term for marketing purposes with people that
think of the term "relational" more narrowly to exclude user-defined types.

-- Darren Duncan

Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 20:15 -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> I wonder if it is time to re-examine the term object-relational and
>> how we explain it.
>
> +1.
>
> My first suggestion to consider removing the word "object" fell flat,
> but I think improving the documentation around that term would help
> avoid confusion (including my confusion).
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1335420139.28653.59.camel@jdavis
>
> Based on that thread, it seems to have something to do with
> extensibility, user-defined data types, polymorphism, and overloading.



pgsql-advocacy by date:

From: Rob Napier
Date:
Subject: Re: Call for RCs for 9.2 release
From: Gabriele Bartolini
Date:
Subject: Re: Australia: PostgreSQL Miniconf at LinuxConf 2013