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

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote:

>"Tony" <andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>news:c0e3f26e.0405290915.17c5cb88_at_posting.google.com...

[snip]

>If there is a tight mathematical definition of "data" within relational
>theory, then that's great, but it is not the commonly used definition, I
>suspect. It is in the leap from doing relational theory to thinking that
>the application of such theory is the best approach to storing/retrieving
>propositions using computers by a business -- that is where there is a
>rather significant leap of faith. That connection is NOT science, although
>we could conceivably set up some experiments to collect a bit more
>information about whether it is better than some other approach. I'm not
>opposed to faith, but we need to call it what it is. There is mathematical
>relational theory and then a leap of faith in the use of relational theory
>for anything.

     It is an even bigger leap of faith to operate without a theory underlying what you are doing.

>> Now, when someone uses the relational model to build a database
>> corresponding to some real world thing, say a payroll system, then it
>> is up to the database designer (not the relational model) to ensure
>> that what he builds corresponds to the reality he is building it for.
>
>And perhaps that person opts out of using (at least all of) relational
>theory and that's fine, right?

     What is the replacing theory? Is it better or worse? How do you know? Is the consideration of better/worse a leap of faith? If not, why not?

[snip]

sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.