Re: foundations of relational theory?

Lauri Pietarinen <lauri.pietarinen_at_atbusiness.com> wrote in message news:<3F9FD48C.8000502_at_atbusiness.com>...
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
> >Lauri Pietarinen <lauri.pietarinen_at_atbusiness.com> wrote in message news:<bnmkv8$f9j$1_at_nyytiset.pp.htv.fi>...
> >
> >
> >>Marshall Spight wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>"cmurthi" <xyzcmurthi_at_quest.with.a.w.net> wrote in message news:3F9E7BFE.7050400_at_quest.with.a.w.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Perhaps
> >>>>this can evolve to a discussion of priorities and strategies in
> >>>>application development instead of purely theoretical niceties.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>I'm interested in practicalities, but I'm also interested in
> >>>theory. The big reason I read c.d.t. is to further my interest
> >>>in theory. When I'm at work, I'm Mr. Practical. When I'm
> >>>home, reading newsgroups, I put my theory hat on. So
> >>>I actually have a *cultural* bias against discussing practicalities
> >>>while here. (Plus, I already get a steady diet of that.)
> >>>
> >>>Of course, the weird thing about crossposting is that "here"
> >>>and "there" are the same place. This post goes to both, but
> >>>I'm only subscribed to one. To me and other cdters, this
> >>>is home base; to the cdpers, same thing. This kind of
> >>>breaks a basic human interaction mechanism, which is
> >>>that you be extra-polite when you're in someone else's
> >>>home. We're each in the others' living room.
> >>>
> >>>I'm not sure who first brough c.d.t. and c.d.p. together; it
> >>>was perhaps not the best fit of cultures!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I think this interaction has brought up many interesting and important
> >>aspects. The reason
> >>I am interested in theory is that it will make my practice better. I
> >>don't believe in theory
> >>for theorys sake. Through out history the best theorists have also
> >>excelled in practice
> >>(I am thinking of Aristoteles, Newton, Gauss). The most interesting
> >>things come about
> >>where theory meets practice. Even Codd in his work was very oriented
> >>towards practice.
> >>For example there is no theoretical reason for mandating that columns
> >>have names and no order.
> >>The reason for this is to make the database more *practical*.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >As a matter of fact, Codd's original work used ordered columns.
> >
> Not to pick a fight, but I did find this paragraph in the 1970 Codd paper:
>
> "Users should not normally be burdened with remembering the domain
> ordering of any relation (for example, the ordering supplier, then part,
> then project, then quantity in the relation supply). Accordingly, we
> propose that users deal, not with relations which are domain-ordered,
> but with relationships
> <http://www.acm.org/classics/nov95/notes.html#rel> which are their
> domain-unordered counterparts."

Trés bien. Received on Thu Oct 30 2003 - 15:09:15 CET