Hi Shawn -- You can see Curt Monash's response to my comment on this page http://www.dbms2.com/2010/08/18/nosql-hvsp-adoption/
<http://www.dbms2.com/2010/08/18/nosql-hvsp-adoption/>His rationale is at all fleshed out, as you can see. As for the definition, this is really a "marketing term" more than a technical one. Even if it has a technical meaning in the mind of some, it would also be spun by marketing folks. Notice how at varying times "relational database" has been used by MV folks to market their wares. Everything that doesn't have SQL and many solutions that do can be spun as NoSQL now. If we could come up with a NoSQL plus SQL "multi-projection" (that has no ring to it) database adjective that would include both our space and the broader not-exactly-rdbms world, that would be cool. I was happy with NoSQL, but sorry that InterSystems feels they cannot use it. I suspect (but do not know) that they are in the best financial position of any MV vendor, and their marketing counts more than that of some of the other players, so I was hoping they might play in this particular sandbox, but alas... we need a different name for a movement (those are not that easy to start, I'm thinkin'). It might need that NoSQL in it now to get buzz, so maybe there is a way to write that so it doesn't only diss SQL? Multi-access NoYesSQL YesNoSQL SQLSequel (I checked and this domain is taken) SQLAndOtherProjections YouCanAccessDataViaSQLOrWithoutSQL AccessChoice I decided the best of these was YesNoSQL, so on a whim I just acquired yesnosql.com. If anyone wants yesnosql.org or .net, act fast because they are still available -- hey, we could start a sub-wave of the nosql wave, maybe, perhaps? cheers! --dawn On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Shawn Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > You said, "Some industry insiders are trying to claim that the old > databases > cannot fit under that heading". One of the things that I am having trouble > with > is the definition. There seems to be many definitions and criteria for > what > "NoSQL" means and many of them are ambiguous at best. Bottom line, NoSQL > touts > faster access to data, which has been what the MV community has been saying > for > years. ACID guarantees seem to be the biggest hurdle I have seen so far. > > Do you know WHY they are saying that U2 cannot fit the ambiguous NoSQL > definition? > PS – I have been following Cache Intersystem for a while and (IMO) they > are at > the leading edge of being able to apply as many of the benefits that NoSQL > is > touting… > 'We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, > when > all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.' > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Dawn Wolthuis <[email protected]> > To: U2 Users List <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 8:35:35 AM > Subject: Re: [U2] NoSQL > > I made a passionate pitch to a few folks in a meeting at Spectrum this year > that we start marketing our niche that way. It wasn't met with disdain, but > also not with a lot of interest, it seemed. > > The nosql.com and .org domains are held by an MV person since a few of us > coined the term in 2006 or so (before others coined it, although there is > an > outside chance they saw the No SQL symbol in my 2006 blog, read by more > non-MV folks than I expected, about 20,000 unique visitors). Now some > industry insiders are trying to claim that the old databases cannot fit > under that heading, but I sure think we can. We should get our noses in > there, in my opinion. I suspect some are doing that, but not yet in a big > enough way to be visible. > > Check out this paper that "mumps folks" did at > > http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.mgateway.com/docs/universalNoSQL.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGv19S_1lFurM49IDmfErFjDu1mfQ > . > > We pickies might be well-served to do likewise. I suggested quite a > while > ago to InterSystems (and again more recently) that they wave the NoSQL > banner, but they have such a fantastic and fast SQL product (the best in > the > MV space, but also great in the relational space) that they want to tout > that. Their MV Query language is far faster than most because it is built > on > top of THEIR SQL implementation, a far cry from typical SQL performance. > > There needs to be a NotJustSQL designation that is clearer, I suspect. > > cheers! --dawn > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:44 AM, Shawn Hayes <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Everything I have read about the NoSQL movement in the past year has met > > the > > requirements of U2. Depending on who you are talking to, NoSQL means > "Not > > Only > > SQL" or "NO" SQL. One of the advantages of U2 is that we meet both these > > definitions. Has anyone been marketing themselves as a NoSQL expert? If > > this > > isn't just the latest "fad", this could be a huge boost for U2 > > supporters... > > Thoughts? > > > > 'We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of > life, > > when > > all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.' > > > > _______________________________________________ > > U2-Users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > > > > > -- > Dawn M. Wolthuis > > Take and give some delight today > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > -- Dawn M. Wolthuis Take and give some delight today _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
