Re: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?

"Anthony W. Youngman" <wol_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:sFcs6eBT2+qAFwPo_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk...

> If we can't set up an experiment (even a Gedanken thought experiment),
> then relational theory is not provable, therefor it is not scientific,
> therefor it is irrelevant to the real world, therefor why the hell are
> we using it :-)
>
> As a scientist/engineer type, not a mathematician, I want some
> experimental proof at least. Unfortunately, all the (anecdotal) evidence
> I have says that other models work better ...

You make an interesting point here. I would add that the same arguments that would render relational theory
not provable would equally well render the theory non falsifiable. In that case, the question for the engineer becomes moot. The question "why the hell are we using it" can be countered by "why the hell not".

I would suggest that the disciplined practices of engineers are based on several sources. One is prior experience, either the personal experience of an individual engineer, or the distilled experience of other engineers. Another is the accumulated results of science, and of other specialties within engineering. A third is the results of mathematics. A fourth is the study of how people carry out certain data management and data manipulation tasks in the absence of automation. A fifth is the study of the strengths and defects of "legacy systems".

Sorry the list got so long.

My personal experience tells me that the relational data model can be, in certain circumstances, an enormous aid in managing the complexity of defining the data itself, and in clarifying certain issues in the development of application software.

This is a far cry from saying that "all data should be in 1NF". Received on Thu May 20 2004 - 16:28:44 CEST