Paul Vincent attracted our attention to an article in the Communication of the ACM written by Julian Hyde from SQLstream, and wondered about some of the assertions that were expressed in this article. Reading the original article, I indeed found some inaccurate assertions that somehow missed in the review process of the CACM magazine. After communicating with the editor-in-chief of CACM, he suggested that I'll write a short response (and the author will have a right to respond to the response). It takes some time, but today I got the electronic copy of CACM and found that my response, and the response of Mr. Hyde to my response have been published. You can read for yourself (under the title - "event processing anywhere"). In essence I have mentioned three inaccuracies in the original article:
1. On whether event processing is a blanket term for stream query systems: actually event processing is much broader term then stream query
2. There is a religious war between SQL and non-SQL vendor. I have not noticed the religious war, many vendors have both SQL and non-SQL interfaces.
3. Event processing is restricted to one application type in the financial services area, while other application areas are neglected; this is indeed a common misconception, and I have written about it in the past.
Mr. Hyde took his right of response by saying that the event processing vendors fail to satisfy the expectations of the BI community, this is a new claim, which does not seem to respond to any of the issues above.
Paul Vincent in his Blog's post raises another interesting assertion from the CACM article that streaming query engine is a new technology -- well, new is a relative term.
Bottom line: while people are used to view marketing material with a grain of salt, it is typically expected from a respectable magazine which employs review processes to be more accurate, since people tend to take it as a reliable source.