Re: Interested in a moderated theory forum?

Marshall Spight wrote:
> "Costin Cozianu" <c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:buhbtp$bt01j$1@ID-152540.news.uni-berlin.de...
>

>>If you disagree, please show me a post on comp.database.theory that can
>>have some reasonable claim that scientific knowledge was being
>>discovered and validated in this forum and state of the art advanced,
>>cause otherwise I can show you plenty of amateurish psots :)

No kidding. But if you shoot them down fast, then that's a great service   you do.

Remeber http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?CriticsAreYourBestFriends

> That aside, I'll nominate the discussion of atomic updates as an
> alternative to current-style transactions as an example of an
> attempt to advance the state of the art through the application
> of science, or at least math.
>
>
> Marshall
>
>

I would nominate that discussion as a good example of half baked ideas, for which arguments are made in ignorance and in disconnect with the current body of scientific knowledge (transaction theory, google for Weikum and Vossen "Transactional Information Systems"), which, regardless of the current solutions, has largely and correctly identified all the problems that transaction theory needs to address.

Those problems that a new theory of transactions (or theory of databases without transactions), have not even been systematically identified and specified, much less address by that thread. Had the proposers tried to publish their work in an academic settings '''and''' test their theory with some real software, I have no doubts a better output would have ensued, even if that output might have been a dismissal of their ideas.

It's much like the relation between "The Third Manifesto" type systems and the current body of knowledge identified as Type Theory.

Best,
Costin Received on Mon Jan 19 2004 - 22:29:26 CET