Re: A database theory resource - ideas

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:48:47 GMT
Message-ID: <3OHKh.26745$DN.24285@pd7urf2no>

dawn wrote:
> On Mar 16, 9:58 am, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> <snip>
> Perhaps it may even provide a reference link for
>

>>common arguments that continually arise. Who knows.

>
>
> I like that idea. Providing links to all sides of the common issues
> would be very helpful.
> ...

Right. Same old theme, increase obfuscation as much as possible, deter any chance of insight.

>

>>Anyhow I am initially aiming to concisely cover the following topics:
>>
>>* The vital nature of separating conceptual/logical/physical layers in
>>data modelling
>>* Working in terms of Propositions and not Objects

> ...

Consisely? Coming from you? Either the world has gone wonky or I'm losing my mind.

>
> You say later "with as little impartiality..." but I think you meant
> "with as little partiality" or "as much impartiality" (perhaps someone
> has already corrected that, but I did not read all replies). With
> this one and others you are definitely not taking an impartial
> approach.
> ...

Impartiality is the mantra of magistrates in most western legal systems and idiots from every country.

>

>>* The argument against OID's (and hence for the information principle)

>
>
> Would you want pointers to the arguments for OID's and against the
> information principle too, or are you thinking in terms of a
> repository in defence of relational theory only?
>
>

>>* Why Navigation was replaced by Declaration

>
>
> Heh heh, and they are not even mutually exclusive ;-)
>
>

>>* That Data models involve not just structure, but also manipulation
>>and integrity.
>>* Why hypertext models are insufficient (due to irreducible tuples)
>>(web 3.0 ... good grief)
>>* What semistructured data is (or rather is not).
>>
>>I am planning to omit well covered ground such as eliminating
>>redundancy and anomalies through normalization, simply referring to
>>external links. Obviously all of the above has been covered somewhere
>>in the literature, so the aim is rather to produce a central, concise
>>and hence accessible resource as opposed to resorting to a text-book/
>>academic paper format.
>>
>>The main purpose is to provide a purely educational resource, with as
>>little impartiality as I can muster, constraining to established
>>theory and facts, or clear logical arguments.

>
>
> May I be on the committee to decide whether something is a logical
> argument? big smile.
>
>

>>So my question to cdt is to ask what /you/ believe the priorities for
>>such a resource would be?
>>- which pivotal questions are most misunderstood?

>
>
> 1NF
> nested structures
> lists
> navigation
> partitioning of the DBMS so that the language of (some) constraints is
> altogether different from the languages used to address end-user-
> defined constraints.
> and everything else that I _don't understand_ yet.
>
>

>>- where does most ignorance lie in our field?

>
>
> so many possible responses to that straight line
>
>

>>- are there are any crucial topics that you believe it would be useful
>>to address that I have not listed.

>
>
> Emperical evidence to support theory.
>
>

>>Any input is gratefully received.
>>
>>Regards, Jim.

>
>
> cheers! --dawn
>

Cheers yourself, I thought you had promised to get out of here, eg. save us from all your circular, uninspired, irrelevant rambles.

p Received on Fri Mar 16 2007 - 20:48:47 CDT