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

dawn wrote:

<SNIP>

>
> OK, that was my impression too. So, one person might have 2VL in their
> theory and another might have 3VL, right? How would one judge whether
> one was better than another? I would think that would be by applying
> each system of rules along with some means of measuring which system
> produces better results in various areas. Judging database theories
> would be much like judging software products - what features does it
> provide, what quality requirements does it meet, etc. Does that make
> sense?

Yes, perfectly, but...

> We actually need to know
> which requirements we are aiming for and then perhaps collect emperical
> data, not just think "hey, it seems to me that relational theory should
> provide us with databases that are easier to maintain with quality data
> over the long term than other databases." But when I bring up
> emperical data, some indications are that this is outside the scope of
> database theory.

...and here I make a value judgement that one of the needs of my business is a consistent body of tools. Having made that judgement, RM meets the broadest range of goals in the easiest way, and can 'stretch' for me on the edge-cases. Therefore I choose RM and move on.

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