Subject: Rick's message on TSQL standards

From: Abdullah Uz Tansel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1993 04:28:32 -0400 (EDT)

In his recent message Rick provided three alternatives on TSQL
standards.  There are several points which I would like to bring to
the attention of TDB community:
 
1. During the workshop we only discussed whether standards for a temporal
extension should be done to SQL2 or SQL3.  Beyond this we have not
discussed any other technical issues and the language features needed.
There was common agreement that temporal standards are needed and that
is where we have stoped.  If I am mistaken please correct me.
 
2. Definition of temporal standards is an important requirement and it
will be a significant contribution to the field.  I also beleive it iss
urgently needed.  However, defining stabndards involves serious
implications for the tdb field and its future developments and it
should not be done in a rush.  No matter how good our intentions are
there is   the significant danger of making a disservice to  the
tdb field if the standards are not well and thoroughly defined.
 
3.  In my oponion, email is not the ideal medium for developing
stabdards which are expected to represent consensus.  It requires
elaborate, face to face discussion.  Email can only do the ground
work not the final conclusion.  Given the tight schedule for the
preparation of the workshop report linking this document and
the standards is not reasonable. Especially, incorporating matarial
prepared in a rush to a documnet which represents consunsus
may deliver the wrong and unintended messages to the industry and
 
others.  Are we willing to accept the historical burdon of such respon-
sibilty.
 
4. In my oponion, the ideal approach is first determinig the requirements
especially language requirements of temporal databases.  These require-
ments should be    determined with broader perspective.  Then, the
standards can be defined accordingly, for SQL2, SQL3, or any other
language you like.  It is even possible to achieve any short term
objective. However, this can not be done in a rush.
 
5. The above comment may sound negative.  That is not my intention,
I just want the tdb community be aware of these points.  I am not
against extending SQL2 or any other effort.
 
Here are my suggestion:
 
A. Establish a platform for defining tdb language requirements
comprehensively.  Develop the requirements over, say next 6 month.
 
B.  Then form groups for SQL2. SQL3, OODB, etc.
 
C.  Have a meeting in spring to discuss and finalize the findings of
the groups.

D. Do not link workshop document and standards.
 
The time table is tentative can be modified.  It is an idea.
Comments are welcome.
 
Best wishes
Abdullah Tansel