Re: dbms/rdbms software & its environment

"Ruud de Koter" <ruud_dekoter_at_hp.com> wrote in message news:3FA6290A.6DFBD544_at_hp.com...
> Hi Farmer (which I will call you, as you seem to sign by that name),

Thanks. My main crop is soil, which I make by gathering masses of schredded paper and mixing with grass clippings, bush scrap and manure to turn to mulch, watered and turned periodically.

> You seem to feel a need to add some add hominem (rather misplaced):

It seems that many posters to this ng feel this need. When in Rome ...

> > What do you do for aliving Ruud?
> > Are you a brickie's laborer?
>
> I might be.

It's not a bad job - did it for a while myself travelling around.

>The important part is that I am trying to share some things with you
> that I owe to a Uunivesity education.

Well thanks Ruud, I appreciate the dialogue.

>These are:
>
> - if you discuss something, know what domain you are discussing (the start
of
> this thread: database theory is about databases, not about computers in
> general),

One would expect that the domain of database theory would somehow interface to the nature of, and the development of dbms/rdbms software.

Can you have in theory a database without a computer and operating system? Perhaps on a backup tape or CD. But it would be difficult to run a production (database related) system in this manner.

> - also: be sure to discuss the proper things (this post: the fact that
business
> rules can be encoded in a computer does not make them internal to the
computer,
> as you seem to think. Business rules are still external, but you -can-
represent
> them in a computer.

Business rules may be defined within the rdbms/dbms software. Business rules may also be defined in the application system software. This definition is by way of software code.

>This is no different from a database containing data on
> people: the people are not internal to the database because there are data
> stored on them.

> By the way: one way you could try and convince me (and possibly
> others) of the validity of your approach is in showing where business
rules are
> different from people). More specifically: be on guard for confusion
between
> 'the real thing' and the model thereof.

My claim would that business rules are a general form of organisational intelligence
specific to a business organisation. In many instances these "rules" are in response
to government legislation under which the business operates.

The rules can be simple or complex. In the simple case you'd only need consider the allocation of pricing to shelf-stock in a supermarket. If the item number is 239776532211 then the price is $22.00

Complex business rules cover the workflow of the business and attempt to come to terms with the financial reporting cycles that characterise all businesses, perhaps automating end-of-month reports in various parts of the database on an anuual schedule.

Both the simple and complex forms resolve to parameters held in the database schema in control tables that are responsible for the automation of business processes and schedules.

Thus the business rules (or OI) may be stored as data in the database, by representation as above. Not all businesses take things to the nth degree, but many do.

> > Mate, the entire evolution of computing may validly be resolved
> > as an evolution in the ability to store a dynamic measure of
> > organisational intelligence within the computing system.
> >
> > A less general term than OI is "business rules". These are
> > elements of organisational intelligence for a business organisation.
> > Surely you can see that business rules can be encoded to a computer.
> >
> > You will find evidence of Organisational Intelligence everywhere
> > you look .... In the data such as contraints, etc and in the application
> > source code.
> >
> > Gimme a break dude.
> >
> > Philosophically I'd agree with the statement that the world does
> > not start and end with computers ---- there is more to the world.
> > But this isn't the alt.philosophy.computer.OI newgroup.
>
> I am trying to give you a break: that 's why I respond. As you should be
aware
> of you are (also) posting at comp.databases.theory, and what I am writing
is
> theory. It may not be the piece of theory you want or expect, but it is
theory.

Another poster commented that database theory deals with the interface between the database and the rest of the system.

> In fact I am trying to show you that organizational intelligence (or
whatever
> term you prefer) is a field that is not related to computer science.

I was aware that the term (OI) was not in the academic literature. However I believe it should be. Perhaps not necessarily database theory, but certainly information technology management.

> The only
> thing computers help at, is modeling organizational intelligence. But that
can
> be done in one's mind, on paper, on clay tablets, whatever. To the best of
my
> judgment, you are confusing the medium for the content. Don't want to hear
this?
> Then don't post.

Modern production systems contain the dynamic workflow of all their business processes and rules. In a fully automated and electronic production site there would be no paper or clay tablets. All is retained electronically in the database.

There are no ledgers, nothing except electronic data bound by dbms/rdbms software into rows and tables.

> One final remark: stop this silly anonymous posting. It raises the
suspicion
> that there is a reason why you don't post under your own name.

I dont rate names highly, only ideas --- and ideas should be able to be discussed independent of identity.

Thanks for the pointers.

Farmer Brown
(Pete Brown)
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au Received on Tue Nov 04 2003 - 10:09:14 CET