On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think the word "independent" also applies to "data" and "other materials". > > > I don't think so. Claiming that a collection of data would not be a database > if the Data is Not independent does not make much sense IMHO
Well, the wording of the definition is such that it's quite ambiguous whether the word "independent" applies only to the first noun phrase (works), or to all three.(works, data and other materials). I am likely to think that the latter interpretation is the case because a traditional way of thinking of a database is as a collection of individual records arranged systematically and individually accessible, such as a collection of individual phone numbers with corresponding names, in a phone book. It doesn't make much sense to be able to access individual entries if you have to combine them with other entries to make them useful. Relational databases blur this traditional sense but that's because you use relational databases to normalize redundant data. If you don't normalize your data, you arrive back at the "traditional" database where each record stands on its own. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
