Re: computational model of transactions

Cimode wrote:
> Yep. Much bigger than you think. Lots of work remains to be done. We
> are at the limit of RM work done into defining interaction between data
> and people(information interpretability). While RM bridged the gap by
> formalisation between individual information usage and data stored, it
> did not define collective mechanisms for preserving integrity and
> creating *collective* sense of data. In a word, RM allowed to define
> best approximation for individually interpretable information on
> computerized machine but it did not define anything close to
> collectively interpretable information or some kind of more dynamic
> formalization taking in account position of the relational system on a
> network and the logical aspects of interaction between groups of people
> and the system . The real issue with concurrency is that it may make
> some RM concepts ambiguous. I am not confident a satifsfactory
> solution won't be brought anytime soon. A relational system would
> require to be built first.
>
> Trying to implement decent concurrency on a truly relational system
> without some abstract model involving network model abstract thinking
> seems hazardous.

Don't be too sure of that. For example, there is a choice involved in interpreting relations as standing for an abstraction of logical predicates rather than manifestations of set theory operations. To say which comes first is, I think, a philosophical choice that we justify one way or another, by some immediate practical reason, eg., whatever IT hole we are trying to dig ourselves out of at the time. I imagine this might be what's at issue in the first great blunder argument.

p Received on Wed Aug 02 2006 - 00:03:02 CEST