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

On Jan 27, 8:11 am, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dawn wrote:
> > JOG wrote
> > > I still await a
> > > post without any agenda, or baiting, or getting drawn into business
> > > politics -
> > OK, it sounds like database theory is a profession that might want to
> > have no users or at least users with no requirements, right? ;-) IMore baiting. The 'harlequin' syndrome?
>
> > could use some of those myself. There is that joke about the librarian
> > who said that it was a wonderful day for the library because there were
> > only two books checked out and they were both due today. Maybe we
> > could write a similar joke about a database theorist? Just wondering
> > if I'm getting the picture.It doesn't look like you are. I would like to see posts from you
> without any agenda, or baiting, or getting drawn into business
> anecdotes. Should I not be holding my breath?

Dag nab it, mAsterdam -- I swear I posted this question in an attempt to start with the basics and not bring any opinions in until I was at the point of dialog with others. I didn't include any opinion in the OP at all, and agreed with many of the opinions of others on what I thought "theory" meant as in "database theory" -- but not until I heard the responses did I voice my own opinion. What would have been a more rigorous way to address this? I'm starting with the very basics of trying to understand the term "database theory."

Of course I have an "agenda" if that relates to whether I have any purpose in asking questions and learning about any particular subject. I don't brush my teeth without an agenda, but the term "agenda" is just negative spin for "purpose."

In this case, my "agenda" had several parts, with the one that you might question as suspect being the following. I was doing some reading, reflecting on how the industry got to the point where relational theory took on an invincibility, prompting every DBMS provider to add the word "relational" somewhere in their marketing materials, for example. I re-read some things from Codd and Date, at least two of which brought in Occam's Razor. So, I went to some materials on Occam's Razor and verified that if "database theory" was the type of theory I thought it to be (unlike the theory of relativity, for example), then Occam's Razor, a rule of thumb as it was, did not even apply to this situation.

However, I was starting to think, based on various postings, that my understanding of what "theory" meant in "database theory" was different from some of those who were database theorists. So, I thought I would ask in order to learn and see if I was correct in dismissing the Occam's Razor argument altogether. That relational theory was a mathematical theory was highly significant (and to be applauded), but it became THE database theory, it seems, with its claims that no other mathematical theory could be simpler, with either an assumption or outright statement that the simplest was the best. On that point, there was no rigor at all, it seems. Agreed? cheers! --dawn Received on Sat Jan 27 2007 - 17:59:27 CET