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

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 03:20:23 +0200
Message-ID: <40bfce4e$0$48920$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>


Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

> mAsterdam writes

>> Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
>> mAsterdam writes
>>>> This reduces the statement to
>>>> "It was mathematically proven that it is simpler
>>>> than the graph based approaches." and leaves the
>>>> judgement to the reader/student. An improvement,
>>>> but it still leaves the questions unanswered:
>>>> simpler at what? etc.
>>>
>>>  And Occam's Razor (the Einstein version iirc) says "make things as 
>>> simple as possible, BUT NO SIMPLER".
>> The examples given in Alfredo's links did a good job at shaving 
>> CODASYL's beard by providing the same and better
>> results (for the "no simpler" part) from a much
>> simpler construct. Did you read them?

>
> Probably. And I probably didn't understand them.

You PROBABLY read them? Schroedingers cat would go from right to left. I'm positively sure about that, I think. Maybe.

> All I'm trying to say is that simplicity as a goal in itself is a delusion.

As is clarity. As is having a goal for that matter.

> And just because relational may be simpler than codasyl doesn't mean
> that it's a good thing. We have a real-world problem here ... look at
> the following mapping ...
>
> real world <=> business analysis <=> database

<=> defined as 'having some mutual metaphorical resemblances to'?

> What matters is the complexity (or simplicity) of the WHOLE SYSTEM.
> There's no point in simplifying the database, if the necessary increase
> in complexity of the business analysis totally negates it.

Very true. Often made mistaek.

> By focussing
> on minimising the complexity of one part of the system, we make the
> system as a whole more complex. That will explain why Dawn's experience
> is that MV is more productive than relational - the simplicity of the
> relational database over MV simply pushes all the complexity into the
> business analysis side, turning that into a total nightmare.

I'll state my intuition (not backed up by experience) about not taking the time to analyse data: postponing the basic issues will bring volatile quick wins, pushing depth investment (cost) of reflection and the real benefits of data assests into the future. So, if and only if your survival depends on quick wins, go for it.

> Which is simpler - to model a single real world entity as a single
> database "table" as MV does (we can model an invoice in a single FILE),
> or as five or six relational tables? And don't forget - our FILE (should
> be) normalised, so we can access it just as if it were five or six
> relational tables ...
>
> Yep. The database itself is more complex. But the business analysis is
> MUCH simpler, such that the total system complexity is a lot less.

Did you *read* what I replied to your post about mapping concepts from different contexts a while ago? Probably. Maybe. Later. Received on Fri Jun 04 2004 - 03:20:23 CEST

Original text of this message