Re: Date is Incomplete - database application software and database theory
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 09:30:57 GMT
Message-ID: <ll0pc.37942$TT.37064_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
"Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f1Moc.3533$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.
My position is that of a generalist.
All things are connected.
And *particularly* are they connected
to the database schema.
> > > > 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?
The language implemented since 1979 within
pre-shrunk gift-wrapped packages
called RDBMS software.
> 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.
How about SQL in all its
RDBMS vendor forms?
> > > 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.
My point is that they have been discussed separately for the last 25 years, and one is just as incomplete without the other.
> Neither of the above discuss
> hardware, and don't we need hardware to run the software? What about
> electricity - doesn't electrical theory play into our computer systems?
And
> mechanical engineering, of the hard drive and other components? Optics for
> the CD/DVD drives? Man is that theory every incomplete.
Environment 0 - Hardware.
Software Environments are:
E1 = Machine OS and bundled N/W OS. E2 = RDBMS E3 = Application
> > 4. One would expect there to be in theory common ground.
>
> True, but also a degree of separation. One hopes. The alternative is the
Big
> Ball of Mud pattern.
There are also cyclic evolutionary theories.
> > 5. The theory is incomplete.
>
> Uh... perhaps, but not based on your argument above.
See above.
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
Received on Fri May 14 2004 - 11:30:57 CEST