Re: How to perform a health check?

Hans Forbrich <news.hans_at_telus.net> wrote in message news:<zkB7d.10270$223.2685_at_edtnps89>...

> >
> > 1- It's Oracle's definition. I want an industry standard.
> > If I wanted another "defacto standard", I'd stay with
> > M$ and not bother about Oracle.
>
> If the industry is too [pick appropriate adjective] to develop/publish
> standards, and Oracle is willing to fill in the blank, then why buck that?
> IMO our industry in general has no Standards. We have 'strongly encouraged
> guidelines' that are ignored any time they get in the way of short term
> profitability.

The industry HAS developed standards. That's what Codasyl, IEEE, ANSI and a number of other orgaisations did/do. Unfortunately in the 80s and during the 90s a number of marketing idiots thought that standards were things that any company could create. This has spawned the "maker standard", aka the "defacto standard". Which means exactly nothing and has stuffed standards. That is why I don't follow "Oracle standards" anymore than I follow M$'s or Sun's.

> So far I haven't even seen a decent 'industry standard' description of
> Developer, Designer, SysAdmin, SecAdmin (even WebMaster) ... if you can
> point some out, I'd be happy to increase my knowledge base.

None. All those products are posterior to industry standards being thrown out in favour of "company standards". Still when it comes to "Design" - as opposed to "Designer", standards don't deal with specific products - I tend to follow methodologies that have nothing to do with companies.

Quite frankly I'd rather use classic texts defining normalization, conceptual schema design and data modelling: they work with ANY database, not just Oracle's.

> In their definitions, Oracle's stance seems to be "here are the _duties_ of
> the DBA, SecAdmin, SysAdmin, Dev, etc.". Rather than take the fight to HR,
> HR can use these as a guide to develop a '_job_ _description_'.

Not in companies that have to deal with multiple database makers. Fine if all you do is Oracle. Product specific. If you think that a maker of software can define a technical job with any objectivity or impartiality.

Note how even Oracle succumbs to the "versionitis" in their OCP training: since when is knowledge of a certain technical field been subject to a specific version of a product? Have you ever seen anyone teaching Physics V12.4.0.2 in any school or university?

I don't have the slightest problem with Oracle defining in their manuals what an *Oracle dba* is supposed to do. That is not the same as calling it the definition of *dba*. One is highly product specific and highly contingent on a specific version. The other has nothing to do with any specific product.

> And then there's the '... And other related duties' clause <g>

Also known as the "catch-all"... IOW, "we're not sure what else could go wrong but we'll throw this in so we can sell more consultancy while blaming someone else".

> Once upon a time :( that was not terribly unreasonable. Of course, we'd
> then split hairs on the definition of "technical". <g>

Exactly. It's all about definitions. Received on Sun Oct 03 2004 - 08:49:52 CDT