From: 890179s@dragon.acadiau.ca (Michael R. Smith)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.databases.object
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:41:47 GMT

rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:

>> The proposed newsgroup "comp.databases.object" is intended to serve as
>> a medium for the sharing of knowledge about systems which combine
>> object-oriented technology with that of database management systems.
>> 
>> 1.  Is the name "comp.databases.object" the best one?

>No, there is not an exsiting newsgroup for comp.databases.relational 
>or comp.databases.hierarchial or comp.databases.network so I see no
>reason for a group specific to object databases.

From the amount of excessive crossposting on the net, I feel this newsgroup is
well overdue.  The comp.databases groups adequately cover the relational et
al. databases, this can be seen from the lack of crossposting.  However, the
OODBMS postings have been to databases, object, theory, the various OOP  
language groups, and others.  A single group for this discussion will remove
the interference from other groups and finally get the OODBMS questions where
they belong ..... under the comp.database hierarchy. 

>> 
>> 2.  Should the new group come under the comp.databases hierarchy at
>>     all, or would it be better placed under comp.object?

>If you insist on going ahead with it, it should be under databases

I agree, keep them under the database groups where database people will read
it and redirect the postings from comp.object, smalltalk, c++, et al.
>> 
>> 3.  What should our attitude be toward vendor publicity?  (This
>>     should be a guideline only, since we probably don't want a
>>     moderated group -- but we can consider that too, if desired.)

>No other general comp newsgroup is moderated; This one should not be 
Again, I agree.
>> 
>> 4.  Would there be enough contributors (and not just readers) to the
>>     new group to warrant its creation?

>And here is the crux of the matter; at the current time there are almost no
>implementation of object databases outside of some research projects. (Unisys
>claims that SIM is an object database). Thus comp.databases.research seems
>like the perfect place to discuss the topic until we start seeing some real
>product and then we can discuss the need for a separate group. Object databases
>are so integral to other topics in databases that I would not want this subject
>broken off into a separate group. I really thing it needs to stay in the
>comp.databases.research group 

Introduction of comp.databases.research just adds to the problem.  Simply,
another group for more crosspostings.  What is needed is a specific group for
OODBMSs.  The current research as well as commercial applications are    
growing at a rate that no database enthusiast can ignore. If you care to
research any of these in greater detail, here is a small list of OODBMSs
and/or companies that may be of interest, (please bear with me , off the top of my head) :

Itasca Systems
Objectivity, Inc.
Ontologic, Inc.
Servio Corp.
Versant Object Technology
Penobscot Development Corporation
POET
BKS Software
Persistent Data Systems
OBST
Orion
Ode
Kala  
MOOD
UniSQL
Interbase from Borland
Artbase
CLORIS
IDB Object Database
KBMS
O2
ObjectSocienty
OpenODB by HP
SIM
Vision
Zeitgeist

(excuse the errors or typos but these are from memory... MS)  

----
Michael R. Smith
Office 423 Carnagie Bldg.
Jodrey School of Computer Science
Acadia University, Wolfville, NS
CANADA					email : michael.smith@acadiau.ca