NOW I remember why I never looked at BOL 2005 ... Microsoft pushes the .NET stuff down your throat even on simple documentation... BOL 2005 wants me to install the .NET Framework just to install it...
I cannot confirm nor deny the plagerism... with that in mind, I hate to cast a doubt, but that would explain the kinds of typos (words run together and 231 instead of 231) in the document... gosh, I sure hope Sushila was right about this one and that it's a "compilation" and not a plagerism.
Thanks all for the comments on the article.I do agree there has been a bit of typing errors ,but I would be more careful next time.
The whole idea of writing this article came to me, as I realise there are many SQL Developers who are still working with SQL 2000 and dying to get hands on SQL 2005.I wrote this article specifically for them because Transact SQL is the easiest for any SQL developer to relate himself to.
I dont think referring MSDN can be termed as Plagiarism,after all we are using Microsoft product and there cant be anything more authentic.
It's not 'referring', you've cut and paste 90% of the text from BOL. Without even providing a reference.
If you copy random chunks of your article and put the whole phrase in Google, result number 1 is MSDN with an article with the same name as your section heading and the exact phrase in the MSDN article.
e.g. "Common table expression (CTE) can be thought of as a temporary result", "A recursive CTE is one in which an initial CTE", "following example first creates a synonym for the base object"
The exact word-for-word phrases are returned on MSDN. If you use word-for-word without putting it in quotes and providing where the original is located it is plagiarism, you would be thrown out of a University, fired from a Newspaper, never be able to work in the field again. To do it not once but as an entire 'article' is extreme.
And you've still not provided the references you used:
New features SQL2005: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms170363.aspx
New TSQL Features: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177591.aspx
If you read the article properly
The article clearly states the below
For further reference on CTE read the link: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/ms190766.aspx.
If you are expecting us to know the features of SQL 2005 without refering to MSDN.I think you are wrong
Here's what BOL says about CTE's (not at either link you posted, but rather here: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175972.aspx)
"Specifies a temporary named result set, known as a common table expression (CTE). This is derived from a simple query and defined within the execution scope of a single SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE statement. This clause can also be used in a CREATE VIEW statement as part of its defining SELECT statement. A common table expression can include references to itself. This is referred to as a recursive common table expression."
Here's what the author said (http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/sramakrishnan/2734.asp):
"Common Table Expressions : Common table expression (CTE) can be thought of as a temporary result set that is defined within the execution scope of a single SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, or CREATE VIEW statement. Unlike a derived query that was commonly used in SQL 2000, you dont need to copy the query definition multiple times each time it is used. You can also use local variables within a CTE definitionsomething you cant do in a view definition."
Basically the sentence fragment "defined within the execution scope of a single SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, [or] DELETE" looks to be the same on this one. The reference the author posted to BOL at http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/ms190766.aspx has this to say:
"A common table expression (CTE) can be thought of as a temporary result set that is defined within the execution scope of a single SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, or CREATE VIEW statement. A CTE is similar to a derived table in that it is not stored as an object and lasts only for the duration of the query. Unlike a derived table, a CTE can be self-referencing and can be referenced multiple times in the same query."
Looks like a chunk of text was lifted word-for-word from BOL in this instance. I'm not going to personally compare the whole article to BOL, but the author should have definitely used parenthetical and in-text citations, or footnotes, so that readers could tell exactly what was being quoted from BOL versus his original work.
To the author, here's what it might look like with a proper citation:
Common Table Expressions : Books Online provides this definition of a Common Table Expression: "Common table expression (CTE) can be thought of as a temporary result set that is defined within the execution scope of a single SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, or CREATE VIEW statement." (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/ms190766.aspx). Unlike a derived query that was commonly used in SQL 2000, you dont need to copy the query definition multiple times each time it is used. You can also use local variables within a CTE definitionsomething you cant do in a view definition."
It's OK to quote from other sources, but you have to properly cite the sources. Properly quoting and citing authoritative sources on a topic does not detract from your original work, but not properly citing sources makes all your work suspect. Someone should write an article on that...
Thanks for the comments.I think this would definitely help me to better my articles in future.
In the next article I have concentrated more on providing the examples rather than describing the features in theory.Hope you guys would like it
Yeah One thing I admit of not having done is that I havent added all the references.This Iam definitely going to do in my future articles.
No need to download it Just go to BOL on the msdn2 website: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms130214.aspx
Perfect, Mike... Thanks for the tip.
I thought this was a great article, it sums up the key T-SQL additions. Just what we DBAs/developers need to know. So what if parts are copied from BOL. Not all of us are need deep into 2005 yet to have 2005 BOL loaded and reference everyday. (Personally I do not like the new BOL, I guess I'm too used to 200 BOL).
I don't think the author intended it this way, but to answer your question of "So what if parts are copied from BOL"? Because...
1. Plagerism is in pretty bad form. Most learned readers would rather eat pond scum than read plagerized material. By itself, copying material isn't plagerism... not giving very specific credit to the creators of the original infomation is.
Some folks are worried about item 1 above... me too... I hate plagerism when it happens and represents one of the lowest forms of life there is. Of more concern to me, though, is to warn my fellow authors that you can get the pant's sued off of you by Microsoft and other companies and, depending on the offense, may spend a little time in jail by doing this type of thing. Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the courts. Foreign nationals can also be expelled from the country within minutes of the conviction or jail time served.
Be careful what you copy, folks, even if you do give due credit...
Will Microsoft or other company come after you for this type of "minor" offense? Dunno for sure but are you sure you want to test those waters?