Re: The term "theory" as in "database theory"

dawn wrote:

 > I have been working on a question related to the term "theory" and
 > decided I first should get a better idea of what this term means to
 > others.  Below is the dictionary.com list of definitions.  Which of 
 > the following comes closest to the use of the term "theory" in this 
 > ng as in "database theory", or is there another someone wants to
 > provide?

The group of people wanting to discuss something (from
http://groups.google.nl/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_frm/thread/e42b368fd2303cda:

CHARTER:        Discussion of topics relating to advances in database
                 technology including debate on theoretical, 

                 prototypical and performance aspects of Database
                 Systems, Data Modelling and Logical and Physical
                 Database Design.

                 Specifically excluded are discussions relating to
                 implemented DBMS whether commercial or not. )

had to find a suitable label, a flag.
The participants could have wandered away from their charter as well as from the label and mainly discuss Japanese cooking, but most of the time the label pushes the discussion in the general direction of what people think of when they read it. A lurker, attracted by the flag "comp.databases.theory" finding out that Japanese cooking is the main topic, would only stay if he also happened to like to discuss sushi.

Like Bernard Peek I think building on a definition of "theory" in "comp.databases.theory" is working in the wrong direction. It is whatever the group accepts today. Tomorrow it may be different.

Having said that, some comments:

>From dictionary.com
>
> "1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of
> explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

As soon as people started to write up inventories, IOU's, the problem of keeping the data up-to-date emerged.

(data in a broad sense, not limited to computers - I say this because some even deny the existence of data outside computers by making computers a defining part of "data".)

So, they started to see the data itself as a valuable resource. They started organizing the data beyond just archiving all documents.

How did they do that?
What principles did/do they use?
How did those change?
What triggered these changes?

These could be topics for database theory in sense number 1.

In Kenneth Downs' words, /database/ as a phenomenon whose principles need to be discovered

He wrote:

 > A database is not a phenomenon whose principles need to be
 > discovered, as for instance the phenomenon of gravity
 > is the subject of Einstein's theory of relativity.
 > A database is a man-made thing whose principles are
 > crafted by the human mind to accomplish human goals.

However, most participants in cdt limit the environment to computers.

Note that it (database as a phenomenon) would go somewhat against the cdt charter because it is about implemented databases.

> 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in
> contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as
> reporting matters of actual fact.

Nice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos

> 3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging
> to one subject: number theory.
> 4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or
> methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

I think this is close to what the group accepts today.

> 5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the
> method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

RM, a vociferous group only likes to discuss this one. MV, you and some others like to discuss this one.

> 6. contemplation or speculation.

This is just a rude #2.

> 7. guess or conjecture."

6a.

Proposal:
Database theory:
The part of information theory that deals with dynamic collections of facts as valuable resources.

-- 
"The person who says it cannot be done
should not interrupt the person doing it."
Chinese Proverb.