Re: Something new for the New Year (2008).

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:57:18 -0400
Message-ID: <477e2d32$0$19862$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>


Marshall wrote:

> On Jan 3, 7:49 pm, Rob <rmpsf..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>

>>1. Rob said the following:
>>
>>
>>>Some (like JOG) interpret the data structures (relations) of a
>>>relational database as sets of "true" logical statements.
>>
>>In reply, JOG said:
>>
>>
>>>>I'm sorry Rob, but that's not an interpretation. Thats /what it is/.
>>>>The relations of a relational database encode true facts about the
>>>>world.
>>
>>But according to Marshall:
>>
>>
>>>as far as the RM goes, it models our
>>>ideas about real-world entities and our ideas about real-world
>>>relationships in exactly the same way: as mathematical relations.

>
>
> Your implication seems to be that there is some inconsistency
> or disagreement between what JOG and I said. I don't see any
> disagreement there.
>
>
>
>>So as long as there is no universal consensus about how
>>relational databases and the relational model allow us to represent
>>"true facts" and "entities and ... relationships", I think I should be
>>allowed to have my primitive view of a relational database as a
>>set of sets of vectors. (Please, hold your applause until the end.)

>
>
> It seems to me that JOG's "facts about the world" and my "ideas
> about real-world entities and ... relationships" refer to the same
> thing.
>
>
>
>>2. Marshall asked me a number of questions which I tried to
>>answer. And although I told Marshall that I just wanted to show
>>cdt folk something that I thought was new and interesting, Marshall
>>insists he needs much, much more.
>>
>>But, JOG tells me that "If [I] can't respond to Marhsall's [sp]
>>questions directly in a paragraph or so, then alarm bells go off."
>>
>>Rome wasn't built in a day.

>
>
> I don't think I asked for "much, much" more. All I asked for was
> some modest indication of why your way was "better" in the
> most generic sense of "better." It wasn't I who introduced
> revenue-per-employee! And in fact I am pretty clear you left
> the "interesting" part out of your intended new-and-interesting
> thing: I *still* don't know what you find interesting about it.
>
> I mean, how hard would is it to take two hand-picked schemas
> and show how a query gets shorter or easier to understand
> or whatever under the new approach?
>
>
>
>>3. Curiously, the only indisputable comment came from Jan Hidders:

>
>
> This is not an unusual circumstance.
>
>
>
>>4. Here are two Q&As from a July 28, 2007 interview of Scott
>>Berkun by Guy Kawasaki. See if they remind you of anything:
>>
>>"Question: Why do innovators face such rejection and negativity?
>>Answer: It's human nature -- we protect ourselves from change. We like
>>to think we're progressive, but every wave of innovation has been much
>>slower than we're told. The telegraph, the telephone, the PC, and the
>>internet all took decades to develop from ideas into things ordinary
>>people used. As a species we're threatened by change and it takes a
>>long time to convince people to change their behavior, or part with
>>their money."
>>
>>Question: What are the primary determinants of the speed of adoption
>>of innovation?
>>Answer: The classic research on the topic is Diffusion of Innovation
>>by Rogers, which defines factors that hold up well today. The surprise
>>to us is that they're all sociological: based on people's perception
>>of value and their fear of risks -- which often has little to do with
>>our view of how amazing a particular technology is.

While not Guy Kawasaki, I think it would be much more relevant and illuminating to quote something else:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626367

"their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it"

>>
>>For the full interview, see
>>
>>http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2007/06/ten-questions-w.html
>>
>>I would also commend you to Geoffrey A. Moore's classic "Crossing
>>the Chasm" and Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point". These aren't
>>database texts, but treatises on how some innovations and inventions
>>lead to sucessful products.

>
>
> Harumph. I think you're starting to condescend here. The fact
> that everyone scoffed at Einstein for a year doesn't mean that
> everyone who gets scoffed at for a year is the next Einstein.
> Most good ideas get scoffed at; most bad ideas get scoffed
> at too. Let's not forget Sturgeon's Law either.
>
> Berkun isn't the source of any particular innovation that I'm aware
> of. He's someone who studied others' innovations. And if he only
> studied the ones that were ultimately successful, he's in no position
> to say anything intelligent about what the right response to new
> ideas is; his sample is hopelessly biased. If he really wanted to
> understand the world's ratio of good ideas to bad, he should
> read sci.math.
>
>
> Marshall
Received on Fri Jan 04 2008 - 13:57:18 CET

Original text of this message