> -----Original Message-----
> From: Firebird-Architect@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Firebird-Architect@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Martijn Tonies

....

> > - the catalog (system tables) lives in its own schema
> (don't know how
> > relevant it's, but I found it in other products)
>
> Mostly "system" ;-)

I found the SQL standard provides "definition_schema" (internal tables,
available to the system only) and "information_schema" (the available views
that the user can query to get metadata).

> > - a schema can have security (and new privileges are needed
> regarding the
> > right to execute DDL, anyway)
>
> A "user" in the database (not server wide) is automatically a
> "schema" in
> SQL Server. Not sure if this is a requirement or even wanted as such.

But I think this changes in SQL Server 2005.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190387.aspx
says "Schemas are no longer equivalent to database users".

> > Now, who sees schemas as an urgent need and why?
>
> In large databases, having schemas as namespaces can be very useful,
> especially given the maximum of characters that can be used for
> Firebird object names.

Since Oracle uses (or used) shorter names (28 characters), I can see how
important the feature was for Oracle, too.
;-)

C.