Re: Modelling Considered Harmful

Paul wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>

>>>The case can also be stated that databases are NOT models of reality. 
>>
>>They are not, agreed.
>>
>>>They are rather record-keeping systems. 
>>
>>Yep.

Record-keeping is what a database does, all the time. If you look at it as a simplified representation of something else you want to study, it becomes a model. Ideally the records kept represent propositions about something outside the record (in the case of metadata: within the database), so are usable as a model.

In short: "identical" IMHO makes some leaps about the quality of the database - but I don't feel strongly about this.

> Is it because databases explicitly list facts one by one, rather that
> use things like formulae that one would expect in a "model"? I don't
> think there is any requirement for a model to be one or the other of
> these things. It's just that models of some things (like physical laws)
> have many underlying patterns that lend themselves to concise
> representation using formulae. Whereas things that databases are
> traditionally used for (business details) don't have so many underlying
> patterns.
>
> If I'm barking up the wrong tree here, please let me know the essential
> difference between the two concepts. Maybe with some examples. So if I'm
> presented with some collection of facts I can say either "this is a
> model" or "this is a record-keeping system".

I dont's see any difference but this one: when I use the term 'model', I'm concerned with the propositions represented by the records. I would not use it when I am concerned with the record keeping mechanisms per se. Received on Sun May 08 2005 - 11:38:38 CEST