Re: Date is Incomplete - database application software and database theory

From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 21:41:08 -0500
Message-ID: <c81bkf$jve$1_at_news.netins.net>


"Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:f1Moc.3533$NG4.3523_at_newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...

> "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> news:r%uoc.34936$TT.25791_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Yupoc.1153$Sf1.311_at_newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
> > > "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> > > news:81moc.34371$TT.4146_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > My reading of Date allows me to assert his detailed
> > > > coverage of the theoretical ground of database
> > > > systems technology lacks any meaningful discussion
> > > > of the (one would implicity assume exists) application
> > > > system software which is to "inhabit" the system.
> > > >
> > > > This is radical incompleteness of theory.
>
> So any discussion of computing has to discuss application software as
well?
> I disagree completely; there are many, many disciplines in and around
> computer science that lend value without delving into applications.

One difference might be in how we perceive/define the relationship between database and s/w application. Whether you see databases as being distinct from software applications or not, I would think we would all agree that software applications are, at the very least, clients of database services.

You can talk about your company without talking about your customers, but you better not do so for very long, I would think.

> > > > Are there any parties aware of any other authors
> > > > who allow for the theoretical treatment of the inter-
> > > > relationships between RDBMS software and the
> > > > generic application system software level?
> > >
> > > Between the RDBMS software and the application software? Well, he
offers
> > > Tutorial D and its type system in Third Manifesto - that language is
the
> > > interface.
> >
> > Why have another language? Doesn't that suggest use
> > of the first language is not implemented properly? ;-)

>

> What first language?
>
> Tutorial D is one possibility; Date presents a relational calculus
"version"
> as well. He's not proposing a language, for the most part - he uses it
> primarily to illustrate his models.
>

> > > But I have to admit I'm somewhat confused by the phrase "generic
> > application
> > > system software level", which perhaps needs a few more qualifying
nouns
> > > and/or adjectives for clarity. :-)
> >
> > I dont know. My position is a generalist one.
> >
> > 1. We have database software.
> > 2. We have application software.
> > 3. When are they ever used separately?
>

> The database exists to implement applications, and in particular to
> conceptually unify the many different applications which tend to surround
> any meaningful data. But just because the one is used by the other doesn't
> mean they can't be discussed separately.

One could discuss some aspects of a software application without talking about the database, but one could not discuss the software application and ignore the database, the O/S, or the hardware. These are all pre-requisites of the software application -- all pieces of the s/w application platform.

Discussing a database without taking software applications into consideration is like talking about roads without considering cars or talking about libraries without patrons. Sure you can have folks who are line workers considering only the effort of putting books on the shelves in the exact correct location, but these are not the big picture people then and they better report to people who are thinking in terms of the patrons. --dawn

<snip> Received on Fri May 14 2004 - 04:41:08 CEST

Original text of this message