Talk:Christopher J. Date

Remark

Appropriate to mention that he doesn't really have the Internet so it is nearly impossible to contact?

So that's the reason? Has it been told somewhere? I was starting to think that there might be other reasons not to explain what his recent books are exactly for and which are still current and which supplant which...78.14.34.138 (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I previously made this comment, if someone wonders I found out that the relationships among the recent books are stated in the books' prefaces, be sure to read them on Google Books or something like that before buying.

Essentially at the time of writing the only that's officially been supplanted is "Database in Depth: Relational Theory for Practitioners", by "SQL and Relational Theory, How to Write Accurate SQL Code" (of which there's a second edition), although they are quite different one with each other.

The others have several parts similar but the only really alternative to each other are "SQL and Relational Theory" and the latest "Relational Theory for Computer Professionals - What Relational Databases Are Really All About": the former is theoretically geared to "practitioners", with a working knowledge of SQL, the latter to "computer professionals", with no knowledge of databases.

The other one that can be confusing is "Database Design and Relational Theory - Normal Forms and All That Jazz". This is about database design theory, in the form of normalization - thus not ER or interviews but normal forms, dependencies and such. It is derived from an appendix of the first edition of "SQL and Relational Theory", that is not present anymore in the second edition - thus normalization is not really treated there. It makes frequent references to "SQL and Relational Theory", you should theoretically have read that before this.

Then there's "The Relational Database Dictionary", that's a small dictionary that can be convenient if you have 5$ spare, and the others I know of are more clearly defined.

The classic "Introduction to Database Systems" (last edition in 2004) is still the comprehensive theoretical tome that probably serious students should refer to, although Date in some places says he regrets some of the choices he made in that edition and he changed idea on some issues. I actually still haven't read it so I can't say much.

78.14.34.91 (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability?

Is the notability tag a joke? C.J. Date is mentioned in about every relational database article in Wikipedia. The article itself states one book sold 700,000 copies of "Introduction to Database Systems". From the notability guidelines: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors". Pukkie 13:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a request for citations to independent secondary sources that establish notability. Mention in wikipedia articles is not useful in this respect. Please see WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOTE. Reference some books that cite him; his own book will not do either. Dicklyon 15:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Bob Badour 23:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

All you added was an ext. link to citeseer to show that his book is widely referenced. That's not the same as citations of articles about him. It's a component of notability, but certainly you can do better. Dicklyon 23:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a tag for references - fine, maybe some need adding. Notability on the hand! Do me a favour! This guy is world renowned with or without references. Placing a notability tag on this article is laughable; I've removed it. 86.27.54.199 19:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources

OK, I found some sources for you guys who want to demonstrate notability: here are some books. The key was to search for "Chris Date" instead of full name. Anyway, if you add some refs about him, then you can take out the tags that are calling for them. Dicklyon 03:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for granting permission! 86.0.86.79 10:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome, but I was only trying to help; thanks for adding one ref already. Dicklyon 16:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I've reverted your last edit in the article because it seems that according to Wikipedia notability guidelines for academics, criterion 3, we probably now have an adequate reference to ensure notability. I accept it's only one reference, but I suggest that's enough. However, if you think otherwise, add the tag again and I'll try and find some more. 82.28.2.210 20:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, multiple means more than one, but since you've volunteered to work on it, I won't bother with the tag again. Thanks. Dicklyon 22:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

List of works

I don't know what criterion is employed in the choice of books to mention but "Database in Depth: Relational Theory for Practitioners, ISBN 0-596-10012-4" should most likely be deleted if "SQL and Relational Theory, 2nd Edition: How to Write Accurate SQL Code, ISBN 1-4493-1640-9" is present, as this replace the former. 78.14.34.91 (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Christopher J. Date/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I don't think the page linked to by "A less complimentary view of Chris Date" is worth inclusion. It's not really so much a view as a one sides commentary on a discussion in which the disagreement got ugly, and there's nothing particularly informative or solid here about Date. If you can find a page of clear and reasoned criticisms of Date, by all means add it as a link, but this one doesn't deserve to be dignified this way.

Last edited at 15:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 11:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)