Re: dbms/rdbms software & its environment
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 10:09:20 GMT
Message-ID: <3FA6290A.6DFBD544_at_hp.com>
Hi Farmer (which I will call you, as you seem to sign by that name),
You seem to feel a need to add some add hominem (rather misplaced):
>
> What do you do for aliving Ruud?
> Are you a brickie's laborer?
- if you discuss something, know what domain you are discussing (the start of this thread: database theory is about databases, not about computers in general),
- also: be sure to discuss the proper things (this post: the fact that business
rules can be encoded in a computer does not make them internal to the computer,
as you seem to think. Business rules are still external, but you -can- represent
them in a computer. This is no different from a database containing data on
people: the people are not internal to the database because there are data
stored on them. By the way: one way you could try and convince me (and possibly
others) of the validity of your approach is in showing where business rules are
different from people). More specifically: be on guard for confusion between
'the real thing' and the model thereof.
>
> Mate, the entire evolution of computing may validly be resolved
> as an evolution in the ability to store a dynamic measure of
> organisational intelligence within the computing system.
>
> A less general term than OI is "business rules". These are
> elements of organisational intelligence for a business organisation.
> Surely you can see that business rules can be encoded to a computer.
>
> You will find evidence of Organisational Intelligence everywhere
> you look .... In the data such as contraints, etc and in the application
> source code.
>
> Gimme a break dude.
>
> Philosophically I'd agree with the statement that the world does
> not start and end with computers ---- there is more to the world.
> But this isn't the alt.philosophy.computer.OI newgroup.
I am trying to give you a break: that 's why I respond. As you should be aware of you are (also) posting at comp.databases.theory, and what I am writing is theory. It may not be the piece of theory you want or expect, but it is theory. In fact I am trying to show you that organizational intelligence (or whatever term you prefer) is a field that is not related to computer science. The only thing computers help at, is modeling organizational intelligence. But that can be done in one's mind, on paper, on clay tablets, whatever. To the best of my judgment, you are confusing the medium for the content. Don't want to hear this? Then don't post.
One final remark: stop this silly anonymous posting. It raises the suspicion that there is a reason why you don't post under your own name.
Regards,
Ruud.
>
> Have a good weekend.
>
> "Ruud de Koter" <ruud_dekoter_at_hp.com> wrote in message
> news:3FA23FCA.13665956_at_hp.com...
> > Hi Farmer,
> >
> > This will not be a long and detailed reply to your remarks. I 'll just
> state
> > that you seem to miss the difference between computer systems and the rest
> of
> > the world as it exists out there. The fundamental problem you seem to
> encounter
> > is an unability to grasp that a computer system (and a database as well)
> can
> > only contain a representation of real-world fenomena. What is in a
> computer is
> > never the real thing.
> >
> > Consequently, organizational intelligence as such can never be stored (and
> > fixed) into a computer system. Organizations are complex structures
> consisting
> > of people (most importantly), structures, buildings, and equipment. Those
> are
> > all real-world things. They do not exist in computers. They are registered
> in
> > computers, perhaps simulated, but they don't exist there.
> >
> > As long as computers are not intelligent, the same applies for
> (organizational)
> > intelligence: it resides in the people, perhaps in regulations, but not in
> > computers (and don't start about regulations being implemented by means of
> > computers, 'cause it 's still the regulations that are primary here).
> >
> > Think about this. Try and grasp this. I don't know about your background,
> but do
> > realize: the world doesn't start or end with computers.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ruud.
> >
> > mountain man wrote:
> > >
> > > "Ruud de Koter" <ruud_dekoter_at_hp.com> wrote in message
[Quoted]
> > > news:3FA0CEBA.654D6439_at_hp.com...
> > > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > Good day.
> > >
> > > > mountain man wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There have been a few astute posts here and there
> > > > > to the effect that notwithstanding the benefit of the
> > > > > development of "the relational model" for databases,
> > > > > for the last 20 years database theory (a la Date for
> > > > > example) has remained database centric in its thinking.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You 're doing the same trick again: need to get the computer
> environment
> > > into
> > > > database theory, 'cause it 's incomplete without it.
> > >
> > > What I am doing is trying to understand this implication.
> > >
> > > Is there anything wrong with trying to understand the nature of a
> > > generalised computer system (os, rdbms,apps) in which the apps
> > > environment has been contained within the rdbms?
> > >
[Quoted]
> > > See below...
> > >
> > > > Gosh: need to get the organizational environment into computing
> theory,
> > > 'cause
> > > > it 's no use without organization (wasn't it you writing about
> > > organizational
> > > > intellegence).
> > > >
> > > > Yeah: we 'll have to get the society as a whole into the
> organizational
> > > theory,
> > > > 'cause the organization does not function in a vacuum.
> > >
> > > My article was about a term labelled organisational intelligence.
> > > It is not a term used widely in theory.
> > > As I have found since, the term is mainly used in selling.
> > > This is unfortunate. My aim is the theory here.
> > >
> > > However in my article I defined OI quite specifically.
> > > Firstly I loosely defined it to be that OI contained in the computer
> > > software.
[Quoted]
> > > by this ... "the sum of the data plus the sum of the source code"
> > >
> > > I then derived a formula for the location and distribution of this OI
> > > across a client server software environment consistent of:
> > > * operating system software
> > > * rdbms software
> > > * application system software
> > >
> > > Give us a break. Do you understand the formula?
> > >
> > > > Your approach will lead you to a theory of everything. There are, at
> least
> > > to my
> > > > knowledge, no good examples of theories of everything. That is simply
> to
> > > > complicated.
> > >
> > > I agree. TOES are not the whole appendage system.
> > > You have missed the fundamental.
> > >
> > > In my case however, this theory has emerged after the contruction
> > > of a software tool for the sql server rdbms whereby application software
> > > components can be configured and stored as rdbms stored procedures.
> > >
> > > This tool is not complicated.
> > > It is not a theory. It is a tool I developed in my trade as a database
> > > engineer which has the potential to change the way application system
> > > software components are stored.
> > >
> > > When an entire suite of application system software components
> > > are represented and function as stored procedures within the rdbms
> > > then what is left external to the rdbms software? Only this tool,
> > > functioning as the interface between the user and the database.
> > >
> > > > One of the first steps in theory-building is choosing a limited field
> of
> > > which
> > > > you can build a good (simplified) model. Try and make that step.
> > >
> > > In this case I have built the software first, as a tool of my trade.
> > > It is a concrete thing, very simple, very straightforward.
> > >
> > > I walk into a sql server site with the tool and need no other
> application
> > > development tool to commence the development of applications. The
> > > application development is accomplished by the development of stored
> > > procedures. All this is quite internal to the rdbms.
> > >
> > > Nothing is external to the rdbms enviornment, except the tool.
> > > (In terms of OI as defined: source code of the software and the data)
> > >
> > > I am trying to understand if this has theoretical implications.
> > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Ruud.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > >
> > > Farmer Brown
> > > Falls Creek
> > > OZ
> > > www.mountainman.com.au/software
> >
> > --
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> > Ruud de Koter HP OpenView Software Business Unit
> > Senior Software Engineer IT Service Management Operation
> > Telephone: +31 (20) 514 15 89 Van Diemenstraat 200
> > Telefax : +31 (20) 514 15 90 PO Box 831
> > Telnet : 547 - 1589 1000 AV Amsterdam, the Netherlands
> > Email : ruud_dekoter_at_hp.com
> >
> > internet: http://www.openview.hp.com/products/servicedesk
> > intranet: http://ovweb.bbn.hp.com/itservicemanager
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ruud de Koter HP OpenView Software Business Unit Senior Software Engineer IT Service Management Operation Telephone: +31 (20) 514 15 89 Van Diemenstraat 200 Telefax : +31 (20) 514 15 90 PO Box 831 Telnet : 547 - 1589 1000 AV Amsterdam, the Netherlands Email : ruud_dekoter_at_hp.com internet: http://www.openview.hp.com/products/servicedesk intranet: http://ovweb.bbn.hp.com/itservicemanager --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Received on Mon Nov 03 2003 - 11:09:20 CET