Re: What is a database?
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:38:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <b32f7d90-f841-4539-b67a-ada9742aadf2_at_googlegroups.com>
> On Friday, 28 February 2014 08:03:19 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
>
> > 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.
Well, you need to be more precise in your English. I was answering your post, not reading your mind.
> A non-answer
All my colleagues understand it, and accept it. (More, later ... for now I will maintain your sequence.)
> I am not going to quote the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary at you,
Ok. But I have no issue if you do.
Thanks but the memory remains in working order, I do not have to read definitions over and over and over again. The fact that experience matches the definitions, reinforce the definitions, so they become stronger. One experiences a state of euphoria.
But I looked it up anyway, and nothing has changed.
> but the verb "to order", of which "ordered"
> is the past participle, has at least 7 meanings. Which, if any, of them
> refers to a database?
- You haven't been able to figure that out ?
After you carefully choose meanings and definitions, and after your experience starts matching those definitions (signalling that you are right about them), you will be well prepared for experiencing euphoria. Until then, I am afraid you will be searching texts for what others have acquired decades ago.
b. Consider this. Why are you limiting yourself to *one* definition or meaning of the word ? The universe is integrated. There is no definitive public meaning of the word Order that contradicts the other meanings.
(Except on this thread, where some people cannot even get their heads around even one single meaning, and insist on replacing published definitions with personal fantasies. They live in a state of chaos, the opposite of order. You have no idea how grateful I am, that you are not doing that.)
c. Note that there is a separate and distinct state of euphoria, that occurs when one realises that there is order in the universe; that Order has a root meaning; that all the meanings of Order are consistent; that the order of meanings relates (in order) to the root meaning and its derivatives. That second euphoric state is available to everyone, but of course, it must be identified as a real possibility, by those who have it. Hence my offering to you.
> But I'll accept "structured".
Alleluia. One foundation stone for your house has been laid.
Ordered [d]
Ok, so on the basis of your acceptance of *Structured*, there is good chance that we can progress and close *Ordered*.
For the [1. General] category, and using your choice of public definition, which of course I accept without further ado: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/order I find the following completely acceptable. Please see if you agree, we can then agree on two references, and then progress with the rest of the thread.
Ordered [d] 1 General
Origin (first and foremost, and noting all meanings of "row, series, rank")
Noun
1
1.1 1.2 (The authority being scientific principles re information) 1.3 Ditto
(1.4 I enjoy a certain euphoria (a third a distinct one), precisely because the Order is prescribed by an ecclesiastic authority, which was ordained (there is that word again!) by God, but that may be a bit beyond what can be expected of the participants here. The universe is fully integrated, yes. So mark [1.4] as joyfully accepted by me, but not expected to be accepted by you.)
2 (The authority being scientific principles re information)
2.1 (Noting that your initial post is exactly that) 2.2 (Noting that *Database* is the result of the entire set of Orders (ouch) that apply) 2.3 (The authority being scientific principles re information)
3 (Obviously applying to data, information, only)
3.2 & 3.3 Rank
Oxford misses the relevance of Rank, Ordinal, and limits its application to ecclesiastic. It isn't. Order means Rank (refer to the Origin). At least Codd and I do not exclude Rank as a meaning of Order, and specifically assert it when dealing with data.
5
5.1
8 (Noting that we must make the data that is being filed uniform, before any Normalisation or Structuring can take place.)
9 (In general)
9.2 (In application)
9.3 (The whole song and dance, yes. Remove "square")
Verb
3 (the most important, and the most applicable here: the collection of data is [well] Ordered. Which of course refers back to the noun, which identifies the kind of Ordering that applies to data)
Ordered [d] 2 Computer System
Actually, it is the same as for [1. General], so I won't repeat. With the addition of:
Verb
1 (applicable standards and the RM are the authoritative instruction for the type of Ordering) 1.2 Ditto
The added authorities are:
- Computer Science principles re data analysis
- Dr E F Codd, the RM
which I understand you accept. And of course, taking those directives and prescriptions to be Orders.
> > 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.
- Nonsense. I have specifically excluded only private definitions; I have not excluded anything else (name one). If you are sincere about the question in your thread, it might be a good idea to exclude the evaluation of 6 billion or somewhat less private opinions. Otherwise we will be here for years.
Ok, I have also excluded the mental gyrations of asylum dwellers, that have been marketed as "science" or "the relational model". But those are easily determined and nailed, as when you bring them up, and so far, gratefully, you have not.
2. Count the number of items you have "snipped". Notice you have been doing the snipping. That is exclusion. Stop demanding that others refrain from what you do yourself, it is hypocrisy. Or, accept that some exclusions are valid, normal; don't labour to mention them (it is normal); and get on with the thread.
> You
> do not give your reasons, but ignore or disparage theirs.
Er, they did *not* give reasons, they gave lunacy. It does not invite reasoning, it invites disparagement. If I accept that lunacy as "reason", I would be joining them, they would infect me. No thanks.
I do not have the power to relieve the disparaged state of the insane.
Please, identify anything *relevant* that others have proposed, that I excluded, and I will respond to it.
> > 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
(I must register, you appear to accept that.)
> Your authority for "structured" = "normalised"?
Codd was, but he is no longer with us. What is required here is the genuine understanding and application of the RM. Decades of doing so, leads to advancements and progressions and faster methods (ie. not additions). Once you lay bricks perfectly, you might devise a machine that lays bricks; a ruler that informs you that you are deviating from the straight line long before the naked eye can pick that up.
Er, I am the authority, as a faithful disciple of Codd, following the theory since 1976 and theory-applied-as-practice, exclusively, since 1987.
The marketed "authorities" have not, in forty five years, delivered anything to that effect, or any application of, or any advancement (genuine progression) of the RM. I have. As per the mountain of evidence they themselves have published, they have (a) no understanding of the RM (yes, they do understand a few fragments of it), and (b) they publish weird crap which is not in the RM and fraudulently purport it to "be the RM". Two distinct crimes. So there is no point in looking for authoritative references from the false authorities that have delivered nothing in 45 years.
In forty five years they have delivered abnormal and fragments "normal forms", devoid of method and normality, in the form of "mathematical definitions", but they have not produced a method or a "mathematical definition" for the Relational Normal Form that Codd provided, or a method to achieve that. I have.
I have published commercial documents, and of course many databases that embody it. Yes, yes, with lots of acknowledgement and accolades. I do not market myself, I have not published the accolades or my bank statement. Yes, I have been asked to write a book, by hundreds of *relevant* people, and that is progressing. I evaluated the relevance of publishing an academic paper, but given that academia in general, and academic papers in particular, have descended into farce, contradiction, and pure excreta these days, I want nothing to do with it. There is a good possibility that one of my apprentices (research student, in your language) will publish an academic paper, but I won't promise on his behalf.
Please note also my comments to Jan H on the limitations of this media.
The best I can offer you *here* is this.
a. Read only Codd.
b. Follow this thread sincerely, with an openness to learning, I am happy to provide increments that are relevant to the stage being discussed. (There has to be an acknowledgement that I have something, that you do not have, and I am willing to transmit that to you; I am not going to inject seed pearls into clams.) As I have above.
As directions, I offer (note my previous Qualifications and Notes):
- Formal Normalisation (I repeat: [a] the pre-1970 scientific method; plus [b] the Codd method published in his RM; not the abnormal "normal forms" which provide *no method*) produces Structure.
- A good (valid; integral; uncorrupted; no circular references) Structure is Normalised. A bad one (invalid; dis-integrated; corrupt; circular references) is un-normalised.
- Structure is Logical. Yes, yes, Structure is also physical, but that is pedestrian, the Structure we are dealing with here is Logical. Very little valid info has been published about the Logical Structure of a Relational Database.
- There is a large obstacle, created by the hysterical false authorities, either out of incompetence, or to purposely subvert the science of database design), that reduces "logical" to what is in fact, (a) a mere rendition of *single* "physical" articles: entity vs table tuple vs row attribute vs column key vs index etc
(Erwin [the correspondent, not the tool] will no doubt lecture us on the notion that a tuple is not a row, and the great relevance of the distinction. Prepare yourself for the onslaught.)
Which act (b) thereby limits "logical" to physical articles. Logical, by definition, is at least one level of abstraction removed from the Physical. Normal undamaged humans can contemplate and implement several layers of abstraction; several forms of Logical; each logical element may be a *collection* of physical elements. Subhumans "define" (with an enormous group hug called "citations") "logical" as a mere alternate label of the physical, thus limit their "logical" to the physical, and prevent genuine Logical [Structure, Order] to be recognised; analysed; modelled; implemented.
In their severely damaged notion of "logical", and with the heavy marketing and repetition, that idiotic meaning of "logical" has become firmly established in the industry.
Jettison it. Exorcise it. Remove the cancer. Allow the brain to function normally.
(I am not suggesting that we do a group hug and come up with a new definition of Logical; I and demanding that the idiotic definition be recognised and erased. That leaves us open to the published definition of Logical that normal humans, unaffected by the hysterics of the marketed insane, understand. If you use the same Oxford source for Logical, that is quite acceptable to me.)
Now we can progress with Logical in the true sense, and not in the established raving lunatic sense.
- The seeds (it is a seminal work) of Structure, Logical Structure of a Relational Database, are published in the RM. Any tertiary qualified IT person (excludes mathematicians and theorists) who applies the RM fully and faithfully, will produce a Logical Structure in the database.
- That Logical Structure is Normalised.
- That Logical Structure is probably (I assert it is; no one thus far has asserted otherwise; but it is not published outside the commercial arena) the most important requirement for articulation of the content (tables) in the database.
- Absence of Order, or absence of respect for the Order that exists in the physical universe, results in absent or damaged Structure. The articulation of such is severely limited.
- In my Notes & Qualifications, I noted Integration.
> - Ordering and structuring produces *Integration*, so that need not be stated, but add that term if necessary
Everything in a Database is integrated with everything else in the database. Otherwise it is dis-integrated, a data heap, a filing system. Structure is the integrated form, of Order.
- The corollary is, if one cannot contemplate the database in terms of the components as parts of an integrated whole, ie. if one can contemplate only dis-integrated fragments (JKL and JH), one is, by definition, pitifully incapable of producing an integrated database; or a formalised Structure; or maintaining Order at every stage.
That is another reason why the freaks who market themselves as "experts" on the RM have only exposed and articulated a small fraction of it, and that fraction consists of only isolated fragments.
Now if you are serious about this thread, about understanding the above, I strongly suggest that you use an example. The more real-world, the better. If you do not have one handy, at your request, I can drag one out.
More evidence of hypocrisy. Name-calling accepted without response.
> > 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.
You seem to have some parts of it yes, which I will respond to first, in order to be complete, but you seem to be missing the major section re *Order* and *Ordered*, the context of my proposition re definition of a database.
> 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,
Yes, I have that. If you remove the "only", and I agree with that fragment.
> and "order independence".
Yes, I have that, section [1.2.1]
I agree that Ordering Independence is a requirement of the RM. But that too, is not the *Order* or *Ordered* that I am talking about.
> The latter rules
> out some of the possible meanings of "ordered",
It doesn't to me, but that is a trivial point.
> and removes any possible
> relevance for "ordinal", a word that does not appear in the paper at all.
There is a clear reference to it in the RM, without using the word *Ordinal* (if you know what it is and have used it). But I must apologise for my lack of clarity, his exposition of Ordinals is in another paper. I am happy to remove Ordinals from this thread. Restated:
> > Ordered:
> > - As per the RM.
- Look up his reference to Order
Oh dear. Another apology is called for. I did not mean, literally, search for the word *order*. We are dealing with meaning, not a mere occurrence of a certain word. Let me restate it again:
> > Ordered:
> > - As per the RM.
- Please read the entire section [1]; see if you come up with anything re the Order and Ordered, as per dictionary definition that [I think] we have agreed to. I will take it from there. There is a huge chunk missing.
> >> 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.
Unlike the other definitions, this one might be a bit easier to agree to and close. I would accept a definition from an authoritative source: Oxford is fine, but we might need an encyclopędia for this one.
Alternately, I can offer this:
- over 21 years of age - IQ between 90 and 110 - mind operates at reasonable capacity - no physical or mental deformities - no mental illnes - has progressed mentally, past the egocentrism that is normal for toddlers, but abnormal for adults - logical, scientific, as opposed to artsy type (this is a logical exercise) - possesses integrity of mind (no contradictions in the one cranial space; recognises when something presented contradicts with the integrated mind, and rejects it) - understands and accepts Order (the natural Order in the physical universe); ie. is not in rebellion with natural law - accepts authority, can read, and does not re-invent wheels or authoritative definitions - is not impaired, damaged, propagandised, programmed, "educated" by the forces of darkness (ok, all of us have sustained *some* damage from the war against us) to the point where they cannot converse with another normal human being.
A third alternative is this. Leave it for now; I can call the sub-human behaviour as and when it comes up; you can agree or disagree. Obsession with breaking integrated concepts up into fragments; choosing one or two fragments; and then discussing said fragments in isolation from the whole, is severely below normal human logic.
> > 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.
I didn't suggest that such attacks (whether they are ad hominem or not) on those freaks, was an answer or an argument. No idea why you think it is. I have named them severally, I just do not name them every single time.
Cheers
Derek
Received on Fri Feb 28 2014 - 13:38:05 CET