In favor of a model / theory

"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:Q_KdnSYJ5Yui4CHd4p2dnA_at_comcast.com...
>
> "Lee Fesperman" <firstsql_at_ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:40BBD212.70E9_at_ix.netcom.com...
>
> > It appalls me how many are taken in by snake oil salesman (thanks for
the
> quote, Bob
> > Badour) like Neo who claim to have a better solution than the relational
> model.
>
> I agree with you, as far as you've taken it. But I think it goes deeper
> than this.
>
> I think that most of the snake oil salesmen show up with a product,
rather
> than an alternate theory. I think this is very, very significant.
>
> It's almost as though those who are looking for the silver bullet want
> something that can be described thus: "we don't know why it works, but we
> know that it does."
>
> Now I'm one of those "practical people" that are viewed as barbarians by
the
> high priests of this forum. But this time, I'm going to say a few words
in
> favor of a model with a sound theoretical base. One of the purposes of a
> model is to make visible the consequences of a design decision without
> entailing the actual costs of implementing the design.
>
> A model without a sound theoretical base is often capable of giving
> misleading information about a proposed design. This can lend support
for
> a bad design, or draw support away from a good design. In other words,
it
> can lead away from success.
>
> A model with a sound theoretical base can also do this, but it's easier
to
> understand the model itself, and to know its scope.
>
> The most radical departure that Codd made in 1970 was to try to piece
> together a theory of data structure whose internal consistency could be
> proven. In other threads, I've been somewhat dismissive of "tautology".
> But if I have to pick between a tautological system and a self
contradictory
> system, in the absence of very strong evidence either way, I'm going to
go
> with the tautological system.
>
> It's the only practical thing to do.

Just for the record -- Agreed!

For example, if it didn't trouble me that the current state of the "theory" was out of step with what I have experienced, I would do as many do and stick with what works, not giving it another thought. I'm on a quest to get theory and usefulness aligned, at least better than it is today. Those who believe it to be there already are fortunate -- it is troubling to have one's beliefs (previously for me that was relational theory) be so out of step with one's experiences.

So I went back to the origins of relational theory in researching it -- to see what the mathematical model was intended for. Codd's ACM paper from 1970 (that he wrote in '69 and researched ahead of that) was great. Subsequent work, including Oracle and SQL, seems to have taken us down the unfortunate path of 1NF and rigid DBMS's (costing companies significant dollars).

Cheers! --dawn Received on Tue Jun 01 2004 - 16:00:20 CEST