From rts Mon Jun 28 21:05:04 1993 Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1993 21:04:35 MST From: "Rick Snodgrass" To: Phayes@cs.uiuc.edu, ahn@cbnmva.att.com, ariav@taunivm.tau.ac.il, b_theodoulidis@mac.co.umist.ac.uk, blakeley@csc.ti.com, boddy@src.honeywell.com, buchmann@dvs1.informatik.th-darmstadt.de, csj@iesd.auc.dk, curtis@cs.arizona.edu, dayal@hplabs.hp.com, dcroft@darpa.mil, dittrich@ifi.unizh.ch, eliop@isosun.ariadne-t.gr, elmasri@cse.uta.edu, fabio@deis43.cineca.it, gadia@cs.iastate.edu, gio@DARPA.MIL, jajodia@sitevax.gmu.edu, jcliffor@is-4.stern.nyu.edu, kaefer@almaden.ibm.com, kia@cs.unlv.edu, kouramaj@cse.uta.edu, krithi@cs.umass.edu, kulkarni_krishna@tandem.com, max@mecan1.maine.edu, mb@cs.ulb.ac.be, mumick@research.att.com, olken@ux5.lbl.gov, ozsu@cs.ualberta.ca, pernici@ipmel2.polimi.it, peuquet@geog.psu.edu, pissinoi@nye.nscee.edu, rts@cs.arizona.edu, schen@nsf.gov, segev@csr.lbl.gov, sharma@snapper.cis.ufl.edu, soo@cs.arizona.edu, srelan@arpa.mil, sripada@ecrc.de, su@pacer.cis.ufl.edu, tcheng@cs.iastate.edu, ted@cm.cf.ac.uk, tsotras@aegean.poly.edu, uztbb@cunyvm.cuny.edu, wells@osage.csc.ti.com, wuu@ctt.bellcore.com Subject: follow-on language design efforts Status: RO Content-Length: 2387 X-Lines: 53 One major objective of the temporal database infrastructure workshop was to initiate the design of a consensus temporal extension of SQL. There were three conflicting viewpoints on such an extension voiced by the workshop participants (with associated rationales, not repeated here): (a) With the addition of an interval data type, there will be sufficient support in SQL2/3 to support applications using temporal data. Further temporal support should not be added. (b) SQL2, and the proposed SQL3, require temporal support to be added to the language. A two-pronged effort should be initiated, the first being a short-term effort to define a temporal extension to SQL2 and the second being a long-term effort to define a comprehensive extension to SQL3. (c) Temporal support should be added to the query language, but only SQL3 should be extended. These three viewpoints are clearly at variance. So, instead of a single consensual effort, which appears to be unattainable, I propose three separate efforts, each reflecting the approach espoused by a significant portion of the TDB community, and together enabling further progress. * SQL2/3 Those agreeing with viewpoint (a) form a working group to define an interval data type and write SQL2 (or SQL3) queries for the benchmark queries, so that this approach can be compared with other proposals. * TSQL2 Those agreeing with viewpoint (b) form a working group to define a short-term temporal extension to SQL2. * TSQL3 Those agreeing with viewpoint (b) or with viewpoint (c) form a working group to define a long-term temporal extension to SQL3. The initial reports of these working groups could be made part of the final report of the workshop, if they were completed by August 23. However, the activities of these working groups are also relevant apart from the workshop, and so should not be prescribed by it. The workshop can be viewed as an impetus for further consensual infrastructure activities withing the temporal database community. As a first step, coordinators are needed for each of these working groups. I volunteer to coordinate a TSQL2 working group. I urge those holding viewpoints (a) and (c) to consider coordinating a working group consistent with your viewpoint. Specifically, if you would be willing to coordinate the SQL2/3 working group or the TSQL3 working group, I encourage you to volunteer.