Re: What is a database?
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:03:19 +0000
Message-ID: <slrnlgva0n.713.eric_at_teckel.deptj.eu>
On 2014-02-27, Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, 27 February 2014 07:40:05 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
>>> On 2014-02-25, Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > An ordered, structured collection of data.
>>
>> That could be good, depending on what you mean by "ordered". Or
>> "structured", but that seems less ambiguous.
>
> One answer, really, but in two levels, given the non-computer
> consideration, which I think is good to maintain. It is normal human
> logic, and whatever we do in IT should be within that, not outside that.
>
<Qualifier snipped>
>
<unnecessary repetition of past post snipped>
> 1. General
> Ordered and structured according to the normal (specifically not abnormal
> or insane) logical (specifically not the arty variety, because this is
> a logical task) human (specifically not sub-human or damaged) mind.
A non-answer, since what I was asking for is the definitions of the
words you used.
I am not going to quote the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary at you,
you can look for yourself, but the verb "to order", of which "ordered"
> We do not need to waste time evaluating propositions that, by definition,
> are excluded.
Unfortunately you usually wish to exclude things that others do not. You do not give your reasons, but ignore or disparage theirs.
> 2. Computer Systems
> Since Dr E F Codd wrote his seminal work, the Relational Model, in 1970,
> since it is transformed the entire database industry (we have had great
> platforms since 1984), since it is the de facto the standard for database
> design and the treatment of data, that should be the measure against
> which any implementation is evaluated. And any definitions relating to
> data should be taken from that.
<opinion snipped>
> Structured:
> - As per the RM.
> - That means Normalised
Your authority for "structured" = "normalised"?
> Ordered:
> - As per the RM.
> - Look up his reference to Order, and to Ordinals
Look up where? In the original paper, apart from the use of the business term "orders" in examples, the only mentions of order are with respect to domain or column ordering, and "order independence". The latter rules out some of the possible meanings of "ordered", and removes any possible relevance for "ordinal", a word that does not appear in the paper at all.
>> It is normal human logic, and whatever we do in IT should be within that,
>> not outside that.
If only we could agree on what "normal human logic" means.
> The deranged pseudo-scientists create "definitions" that are fragmented,
> isolated, located in outer space. They are irrelevant to undamaged
> humans, to the real world.
An ad hominem attack on unnamed persons does not constitute either an
answer or an argument.
Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry
Received on Thu Feb 27 2014 - 22:03:19 CET