Re: Mixing OO and DB
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:18:15 GMT
Message-ID: <HqbBj.5473$Y33.1314_at_trndny07>
"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:47d53e64$0$4037$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net...
> David Cressey wrote:
>
> > "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
news:ce09666e-ca81-4da4-95e2-11c358049614_at_h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>On Mar 9, 6:08 pm, "Brian Selzer" <br..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I don't agree with this. You're equating the database schema with the
> >>>database implementation. The schema specifies what information is to
be
> >
> > and
> >
> >>>can be recorded. As such the schema is an integral part of the
> >
> > application
> >
> >>>specification, and it cannot be decoupled, but that doesn't mean that
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>database implementation cannot. The schema does not specify how
> >
> > information
> >
> >>>is physically recorded, nor does it specify the process by which the
> >>>recording takes place. That belongs to the implementation, and that
can
> >>>certainly be decoupled and probably should be.
> >>
> >>Just so.
> >>
> >>This is a difficult distinction for a lot of people to make, however.
> >>Vanishing few software tools even attempt to make any distinction
> >>between the logical and physical, so few people have an opportunity
> >>to see the distinction in action.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > In addition, the logical/physical distinction has not been defined
> > consistently among all the people teaching other people about databases.
I
> > learned relational DB practice back in the mid 1980s, and learned SQL a
> > couple of years later. The logical/physical distinction was decribed
for me
> > by my mentors in ways that are subtly different from the way the same
> > distinction is discussed in c.d.t.
> >
> > Actually, when I first learned this stuff, the distinction made was
> > conceptual/logical/physical.
> >
> > As far as modeling tools go, the tool we used in the mid 1980s was
pencil
> > and paper or whiteboard and marker. As far as real software tools go,
the
> > only one I used much was "Data Architect" about 2000. Data Architect,
at
> > that time, managed two kinds of data models: conceptual and physical.
> >
> > The physical model contained schema objects and database objects. The
> > database objects, things like Oracle tablespaces, were completly
invisible
> > to the application programmer. The schema objects, things like tables
and
> > procedures were generally visible to the application programmer across
the
> > interface.
> >
> > While this does NOT address the point you make above thoroughly, it's a
far
> > cry from not even attempting to make any distinction. I don't know
what's
> > become of DA in recent years.
> >
> > I can add more detail about the conceptual/logical/physical distinction
as I
> > learned it. However, every time I post such material in c.d.t. It gets
> > dismissed as simply "wrong", and I get told to read enough D&D to
become
> > orthodox. I don't need to repeat this exercise.
> >
> > Marshall, if you are truly interested, perhaps we can exchange e-mails.
I
> > don't intend to convert you to the way of thinking that I learned back
in
> > the 1980s. But I think there's enough ore mixed in with the slag there
so
> > that you should extract the ore and integrate it into your emerging
world
> > view.
>
> I don't recall what you were taught about conceptual/logical/physical,
> and I am not sure exactly what D&D's position is. However, the standard
> vocabularies make the distinctions clear:
>
> Conceptual is the domain of all information of interest to humans.
> Logical is the domain of data, that subset of information suitably
> represented for machine processing without reference to any specific
device.
> Physical is the domain of actual devices.
>
> Something that might be logical from one perspective might be physical
> from another.
> The standard vocabularies also make clear the distinction between
> internal and external.
>
A very useful distinction.
> Most discussions on c.d.t would take a perspective similar to the DBA's.
It depends on what you mean by a DBA. There are DBA's in the field who have no authority over, and no responsibility for, the data as it pertains to the application(s) that manipulate it. While I tend to think of such people as glorified database baby-sitters, this division of jobs makes a lot of sense to a lot of people other than myself. Received on Mon Mar 10 2008 - 15:18:15 CET