Re: database systems and organizational intelligence

See in-line...

"mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message news:oqFsc.9762$L.8439_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Thanks for the advice.
>
> Unfortunately I have been in the field many years
> and have arrived at the conclusion that the current
> theory is not universally complete, for the reasons
> stated.

What reasons? You have only stated your opinion, which is somewhat vague, at that. And who, exactly, is "We"?

>
> My only alternative is to state this, and present a
> mechanism whereby current theory fits in to a more
> general theory.

It doesn't need to be universally complete. It just needs to serve its purpose, which it does. If it can't handle a specific circumstance, then that circumstance is external to the bounds of the theory. Otherwise, where do you stop? (Relational) database theory doesn't explain or account for certain types of data relationships, just as it doesn't explain or account for Newton's laws of motion. So what? It explains what it explains. It is bounded and finite, a perfectly valid situation.

>
> "Alan" <alan_at_erols.com> wrote in message
> news:2hedclFc19tmU1_at_uni-berlin.de...
> > "The essence of the theory..."? That is a rather broad statement. But
> > anyway, it works like this:
> >
> > 1. Raw facts that have an implicit meaning are identified in the "real
> > world" (business needs, e.g.) and stored in the database. This is called
> > data.
> > 2. The data was organized properly by having applied normalization
rules.
> > 3. Once this is done, the data can be turned into information by
applying
> > appropriate queries.
> >
> > It is _all_ part of the "essence of the theory". You (I don't
necessarily
> > mean _you_, personally) can't factor out just the part you want to
> mentally
> > masturbate to. Unless you need to for a thesis, at which time you take
> > obvious, common sense knowledge, apply polysyllabic (if possible Greek,
> > Latin, or mathematical, or certainly at least pseudo-technical) terms to
> it,
> > cast some unitelligible title of at least 15 words to it (again, using
the
> > polysyllabic), and then defend it against professionals who have
mastered
> > the art of the arcane and nonsensical. Once they are sufficiently
confused
> > by it, and so can no longer argue with you about it, you are welcomed to
> the
> > circle. You then get to travel around presenting your work at
conferences
> in
> > interesting locations all over the world, where you and the others in
the
> > circle take turns being confused while pretending to understand. But I
> > digress.
> >
> > In short, while this newsgroup is about theory, it doesn't mean you have
> to
> > have one of your own.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> > news:Diwrc.1887$L.919_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > We define the concept of organizational intelligence as the dynamic
> > > sum of all levels of code associated with an organization's database
> > > system, in addition to the data and the data structure.
> > >
> > > We then make the claim that in the final analysis it is in fact the
> > > management of organizational intelligence, rather than the data,
> > > that is the essence of the theory of database systems
> > > management.
> > >
> > > Is this claim reasonable?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Pete Brown
> > > Falls Creek
> > > Oz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Tue May 25 2004 - 15:37:37 CEST