Re: foundations of relational theory? - some references for the truly starving

Pick/MV/Whatever id NOT a relational database as defined scientifically/mathematically(all hard science IS Mathematics). It has no published theory of action or any rational document (non-marketing) describing its foundation. A few behavioral texts exist. But there is no available theoretical treatment.

However, it was devised by mathematicians and computer scientists in the pre-relational world to handle a complex, practical, real-world inventory control problem (Cheyenne helicopter manufacturing) and its development was financed by the US Government as a contract to TRW. (see GIM - General Information Management - work titled GIRLS General Information Retrieval Language.) Since it resides in the Public Domain, all related material should be available.

Be that as it may, what was created was an integrated data base/operational environment which made it very easy for smart, non-technical businessmen to create sophisticated applications to manage their BUSINESS, a highly unscientific world. This goes far beyond accounting into manufacturing, MRP, automated dispatch, insurance policy management, medical billing and the like. Most of these applications (not small either- many in with thousands of online users) were designed, coded and implemented by people who understood and worked in these businesses first, and learned how to "program" as a means to an end.

The query language (originally marketed as ENGLISH) uses SQL structures for it's internal tables (call them dynasets if you must). It is one of the earliest 4th generation reporting languages and was born into the world where computer scientists considered COBOL and RPG the "only practical thing to use for business". predating SQL (originally developed as a tool to navigate and query flat tables usually stored on a company's mainframe -20th century card image).

Relationships are based on proximity and virtual links- not relational algebra. But because of the simplicity of the model (real-world modeled) and integration of the ENGLISH, and the DATABASIC procedural language (and because of) - non-scientists find it easily workable. Today, of course, C++, C#, VB.NET, JAVA can be used as well as any client interface. So- this back and forth is pointless and I find it like arguing Oranges and Apples.

Hence, most developers in the Pick world are not Data Base designers per-se. They are application designers. The application has always outweighed data base theory. I am not judging whether this is good or bad and may spike anther thread ( or thrown stones from out theoretical colleagues ); but it is what it is.

I will close with an anecdote.
A number of years ago, I had the privilege of meeting a number of people form a University in Melbourne, Australia. They told me that the graduate computer program was really two programs. One in engineering school (where they taught C, C++, SQL, etc) and one in the business school (where they taught Pick).
And I quote, "We feel that Computer Science has no business in Business."

Can I here and Amen from the Pickies? (oops- too religious.) Harvey Rodstein

"Costin Cozianu" <c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bn70g5$tk1e1$1_at_ID-152540.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> > In article <bn4ri6$rscgq$1_at_ID-152540.news.uni-berlin.de>, Costin Cozianu
> > <c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com> writes
> >
> >>Without a scientific work describing what the features are, what are the
> >>integrity consttraints, expressive power, is it relationally complete,
is the
> >>language declarative, etc, etc, I'm sorry but I can only disregard your
model as
> >>a matter of principle, just the same that we have to disregard anybody
who
> >>claims that he has a perpetuum mobile, or he has a valid pyramidal
scheme.
> >
> >
> > So we have to disregard relational as a matter of principle, too :-)
> >
> > Relational has NOTHING to do with Science, and everything to do with
> > maths.
> >
> > Please tell me how I can predict the future using the relational model -
> > please ... that way relational can be proved false, and that way
> > relational can be proved scientific. Without that, relational is
> > provably UNscientific.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Wol
>
> Oh, but you're probably adhering to a popperistic definition of science.
>
> I'm sorry, but Popper is for weenies; real men do Mathematics.
>
> Cheers,
> Costin
>
Received on Thu Oct 23 2003 - 01:34:22 CEST