Re: Modelling Considered Harmful

From: Kenneth Downs <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 21:10:22 -0400
Message-Id: <p3klk2-184.ln1@pluto.downsfam.net>

mAsterdam wrote:

> Kenneth Downs wrote:

>> I wonder if anybody would care to dispute the thesis that use of the term
>> "modelling" with regard to databases does more harm than good.

>
> Yes, it is a good excercise. I allready commented in some
> sub-threads, but you dismissed my remarks. I think there is more to
> this, so I chose to reply to the OP this time.
>
> Let's dissect :-)
>

>> The case can also be stated that databases are NOT models of reality.

>
> They are not, agreed.
>

>> They are rather record-keeping systems.

>
> Yep.
>

>> If it can be shown that databases are
>> record-keeping, that record-keeping is not modelling, then it stands that
>> we would not call databases models.

>
> So far, so good.
>

>> We need to define models and records.

>
> Do we really?

   ^^^^^^^^^

<sigh> End of conversation. I am not a post-modern. I am one of those weirdos who thinks that there is an objective truth, that words point to it, and that our clumsy attempts to tie definitions to experience are worthwhile and well worth respecting. Further, using the definitions found in recognized authorities prevents a descent into masturbatory chaos.

> Language is as language does. Language is not a
> record-keeper (database), nor is it a model. But, if you insist ...
> my take is definitons may or may not be helpful in judging wether
> the term "modelling" is harmful or not, but I'm willing to come along.
>

If a definition is of no use, we may as well be writing articles for Harpers.

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

Received on Tue May 03 2005 - 20:10:22 CDT