Re: the relational model of data objects *and* program objects

mountain man wrote:

> "Kenneth Downs" <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock> wrote
> in message news:oqevi2-9q7.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net...
>

>> A useful database will contain data that goes beyond normalization into
>> automation.  What interested me in the OP was my own question: what
>> theory guides the definition, generation, and protection of automated
>> data?

"All business rules resolve to database specifications."

In Ken's world, the One True Theory would in fact be a theory of "organizational data", not "intelligence". It all comes down to columns in tables.

Programs should be managed as commoditized entitites. For instance, nobody except a very very few apache users want to go digging around in the source code to change the behavior of the product, they want to be able make a config setting. Nobody wants to dig around in Postgres, except a very very few of the users, to change the code, they want configs and commands.

Those two examples, apache and postgres, along with their competitors, have commoditized their domains. But database applications themselves are not yet commoditized.

Secure Data Software, with our theory of db management, and our Andromeda tool, seeks to achieve this level of commoditization with application software, that you would never consider tweaking the code of the application itself, you would tweak the "config" of the program, which is its data dictionary, and let the system handle the details for you.

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Secure Data Software, Inc.
(Ken)nneth_at_(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)