Re: what data models cant do

Alfredo Novoa wrote:

> On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:27:37 -0400, Kenneth Downs
> <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock> wrote:
>

>>This raises for me the entire question of data modelling and Kens First
>>Law,
>>"People Understand Tables Just Fine".  Because people understand tables
>>just fine, you do not need another layer of abstraction between people and
>>tables.

Yes, indeed. I formulated my "law" when I observed that people of any technical background or management level could actually conduct very productive meetings together if they stuck to the detailing of what should be kept in tables. There is something in the human mind that easily works with tabular data.

I believe, completely without proof, that this human intuition is ultimately behind both the success of spreadsheets and the relational model. It is what gives us our sense that the relational model is "elegant".

>
> For the sake of curiosity, in Spain "relation" is the common term for
> "table" for the non IT people. Business people tend to talk about
> relations among them and not about tables.
>
> Most business people have a decent grasp on set theory and predicate
> logic and they learn to understand declarative integrity constraints
> and derivation rules very fast. Specially if you use a decent notation
> like D&D's one.

Agreed, this is what I have observed.

>

>> "Models" such as those in the article are only useful because a
>>picture is worth a thousand words.

Agreed.

>
> Although I personally find ER diagrams a lot easier to interpret than
> Barker's diagrams.
>

As well.

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