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

From: mountain man <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 23:06:28 GMT
Message-ID: <UXvrc.1682$L.540@news-server.bigpond.net.au>

"Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:utPqc.308$jd5.112_at_newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> news:c5Fqc.47229$TT.28428_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message
> > news:40a9e021.715949_at_news.tehnicom.net...
> > > On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:56:53 GMT, "mountain man"
> > > <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Applications depend on the data management approach
> > > >> but the contrary is not true.
> > > >
> > > >The modern database systems management paradigm turns
> > > >a blind eye to the applications environment
> > >
> > > As it should be. Theory should not be limited by the current
> > > technology. Theory is the basis for future technology.
> >
> > The theory needs to address current technology.

>

> That's absolutely silly. Certainly new technologies can proceed without a
> formal basis, and decent ones can even suggest a new formal basis as a
> subject of theoretical study, but this is purely suggestion. To suggest
that
> theory address all current technologies is nonsense - the cart leading the
> horse, the tail wagging the dog. Not everything that exists in reality is
> worthy of theoretical study.

This issue relates to the claims made by others that the RDBMS available since 1979 through to the present day, are *not* examples of relational database systems, that the Relational Model is yet to be properly incarnated in technology.

> > Current
> > technology allows application data objects, in fact promotes
> > these, but the RM theory does not address this.

>

> Not true at all, though again your terminology confuses me: what is an
> "application object"? Relational was invented to benefit applications.

While that may be so, Date reserves no context for the application in database systems other than one diagram and a few words. An application object being any code used to perform I/O to the database.

> > Current technology is the stepping stone to future technology.

>

> Not always - theory is also a stepping-stone. Not everything that exists
> today will survive, nor should it.

>


> > > >It's easy to point a finger in the other direction, but in

> > > >the final analysis examination of contributing causes to

> > > >the current state of the nation includes the "paradigm"

> > > >and its incompleteness.

> > >

> > > Only in your personal analysis, and I am afraid it is very wrong.

> >

> > Well I have not yet received any form of logical reason why
> > the analysis is wrong, so I am unlikely to alter it.
>
> You've offered no analysis. All you've said is "the relational model
doesn't
> address X [where X is something I still have trouble understanding],
> therefore it is incomplete." No analysis at all. It would help if you'd
> offer something resembling a beginning of such theory; not all the
details,
> but something that suggests you understand what the relational model does
> say. I simply don't know what you're looking for.

The theory I believe needs to be written relates to the notion of organizational
intelligence. Let X = "organizational intelligence". Briefly one may define this
to be (summarily) the dynamic sum of the data and the application code.

The Relational model of the data is not going to go the distance with this theory, because it is concerned in a very formalised data-centric manner with the data alone.

Database systems in the full and expanded theoretic sense involves far more than the management of data. It involves the management of all things related
to that data, and the change-management of the same: this is the management of organizational intelligence (ie: all processes related to the data).

...[trimmed]....

Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz Received on Fri May 21 2004 - 18:06:28 CDT