Walt wrote:
> "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1172534823.070193.104950_at_k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Walt wrote:
>>
>>>"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1172505529.681070.131640_at_q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>On Feb 26, 8:28 am, "Walt" <wami..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>news:1172444333.974143.227280_at_q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Feb 23, 10:10 am, "Walt" <wami..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>><snip> My questions are regarding
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>layer 7, where "logical navigation" of a database might take
>>>
>>>place.
>>>
>>>>>>>>Does that work for you? --dawn
>>>>>
>>>>>>>what do you mean by "OSI layers?" Are you talking about layers
>
> of
>
>>>>>>>protocols?
>>>>>
>>>>>>First, I'll grant that the OSI layers are not in my area of
>
> expertise,
>
>>>>>>so I might very well have this wrong. I am talking specifically
>
> of
>
>>>>>>the 7 layers (of protocols) identified as the "OSI layers."
>>>>>
>>>>>Could you list the layers, and give a link to a web page that
>
> describes
>
>>>>>them?
>>>>
>>>>I just did a google and I'm not sure whether you had trouble finding a
>>>>link or if this is a test to see which link I would choose. We can
>>>>start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model
>>>
>>>I know how to google. I wanted to see what page you were reading from,
>
> so
>
>>>that we could read from the same page.
>>
>>Perhaps I should have been reading from a page.
>>
>>
>>>The page you pointed me to is a good starting place. So you are talking
>>>about protocols.
>>
>>No, I'm talking about layers and not specifically about the interfaces
>>between them (protocols). I'm talking about that which takes place
>>within the application layer, using the OSI terminology only to try to
>>get the focus within the app layer, rather than below it. If the use
>>of the OSI layers was distracting, then simply zero in on application
>>software development, including all software (code, metadata,
>>database, DBMS specs of any kind) that run or serve as input to
>>executables running on top of an OS, for example.
>>
>>
>>>>If I had been quizzed, I would have gotten the top, the bottom, and a
>>>>few others by name, but I have never studied nor memorized these
>>>>layers. I only referred to them in order to get the focus of the
>>>>question on the application layer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Given
>>>>>>these 7 layers, I am not then talking about taking any one of
>
> these
>
>>>>>>layers and further subdividiing it by protocol, but simply
>
> referring
>
>>>>>>to it so that it is clear (that obviously did not work) that I'm
>>>>>>talking about the Application Layer.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If so, it seems to me that application to
>>>>>>>database theory is limited to the areas where data is exchanged
>
> in
>
>>>some
>>>
>>>>>sort
>>>>>
>>>>>>>of formal protocol.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Surely not.
>>>
>>>I don't understand the above. "Surely not" what? Do you mean "Surely
>
> not
>
>>>limited to areas where data is exchanged in some sort of formal
>
> protocol"?
>
>>>If that's the case, why did you refer to "the OSI Layers"?
>>
>>I hope I explained that satisfactorily. Since it is getting in the
>>way, rather than helping, ignore OSI and focus on application software
>>and the development thereof, including specification for and
>>instructions to a DBMS, for example.
>
>
>
>>> Database theory is highly relevant to conceptual
>>>
>>>>>>modeling, outside of this list of 7 layers, as well as to the
>>>>>>interface between developer and DBMS, for example. While there
>
> are
>
>>>>>>surely some here who have an interest in data in some
>
> machine-readable
>
>>>>>>format that might not be all that useful for human eyes or
>
> application
>
>>>>>>programmers, I'm interested in Layer 7, the Application Layer.
>
> Again,
>
>>>>>>I am not bringing this in so that we can discuss protocols within
>
> that
>
>>>>>>layer, simply so that it is clear I'm not talking about "physical
>>>>>>navigation."
>>>
>>>If you are not talking about protocols, then why are the OSI layers
>>>relevant to your discussion?
>>>
>>>I'm terribly confused by what you have written.
>>>
>>>
>>>>strictly DBMS navigation). BTW, I didn't mention Pascal. I included
>>>>JOG as the third.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Noted.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Any navigation a programmer
>>>>>does entirely within the application is not relevant to the comments
>>>
>>>Cdd,
>>>
>>>>>Date, and Pascal have made regarding database data.
>>>>
>>>>Really? I thought they were opposed to "database navigation" in
>>>>general, whether the application is navigating its way through the
>>>>data or the DBMS is, or some combination. Hmmm. Perhaps one
>>>>difficulty with the terms is that I consider DBMS specifications
>>>>related to any application suite to be "part of" that application
>>>>suite.
>>>>
>>
>>Did this clarify at all? Thanks. --dawn
>
> It clarified a little, but I'm still confused. You can in fact divide
> things into "layers" without regard to protocols, and the phrase
> "application layer" means something to me. However, your reference to the
> OSI layers suggested a common interpretation (between you and me) of the
> term "application layer", and you are using the phrase to convey something
> a little different than the OSI people intended.
>
> Let's distinguish between "database data" and "application data". Data can
> exist in a database, in "working storage" (to use an old COBOL term), and
> be exchange across the interface.
>
> Whether you navigate in working storage or not is entirely beside the point
> that Codd, Date, and JOG have made, if I understand that point at all. The
> point about user navigation interfering with both independence and
> optimization within the DBMS is about the navigation of database data.
>
> And, just in case, "database data" does *not* refer to copies of database
> data in working storage.
Declarative techniques benefit application development too.
Received on Tue Feb 27 2007 - 09:46:21 CST
