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

On Jan 27, 4:59 pm, "dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Think you've misdirected this Dag Nab it.

> 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."

Forget that. Take Marshalls advice of an approach that builds a proper framework and compares queries.

>
> 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."

No need to put quote marks around "agenda", its a common enough word. Nevertheless I'd say an agenda is when one is trying to sell a model (bordering on religiously), where a purpose would be to simply expand ones knowledge. Different kettle of fish altogether. I imagine many would /suspect/ that you are attempting to bend definition to fit your current lack of theoretical foundations for the ol' list-based MV crusade.

>
> 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 - 21:02:48 CET