Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!drn.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsgate.cistron.nl!transit.news.xs4all.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!transit3.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 14:30:50 +0200 From: mAsterdam User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory Subject: Re: Modelling Considered Harmful References: <4v4mj2-92l.ln1@pluto.downsfam.net> <42780a47$0$160$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 71 Message-ID: <427a11f9$0$151$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.92.225.151 X-Trace: 1115296249 news.xs4all.nl 151 [::ffff:82.92.225.151]:15216 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.databases.theory:30705 Kenneth Downs wrote: > mAsterdam wrote: > >>Kenneth Downs wrote: >> >>>I wonder if anybody would care to dispute the thesis that use of the term >>>"modelling" with regard to databases does more harm than good. >> >>Yes, it is a good excercise. I allready commented in some >>sub-threads, but you dismissed my remarks. I think there is more to >>this, so I chose to reply to the OP this time. >> >>Let's dissect :-) >> >>>The case can also be stated that databases are NOT models of reality. >> >>They are not, agreed. >> >>>They are rather record-keeping systems. >> >>Yep. >> >>>If it can be shown that databases are >>>record-keeping, that record-keeping is not modelling, then it stands that >>>we would not call databases models. >> >>So far, so good. >> >>>We need to define models and records. >> >>Do we really? > > ^^^^^^^^^ > > End of conversation. I am not a post-modern. I am one of those > weirdos who thinks that there is an objective truth, that words point to > it, and that our clumsy attempts to tie definitions to experience are > worthwhile and well worth respecting. Further, using the definitions found > in recognized authorities prevents a descent into masturbatory chaos. Providing definitions for crucial terms is one way of clarification. There are other ways, definitions aren't always possible or, when they are, beneficial - let alone necessary. Wether they are in this discussion doensnt matter: I accepted most of your definitons (notable exception: the lack of purpose) - but you deleted that part. Words may or may not point to the truth - no garantuee, there. The one truth fairytale becomes a nightmare, a religion or both when one mistakes ones own truth for that one truth. I can see that the concept of models (leading to differing, even contradictory views of just a few aspects of reality) doesn't fit too well with one truth - or should I say one model? >>Language is as language does. Language is not a >>record-keeper (database), nor is it a model. But, if you insist ... >>my take is definitons may or may not be helpful in judging wether >>the term "modelling" is harmful or not, but I'm willing to come along. > > If a definition is of no use, we may as well be writing articles for > Harpers. So Harpers is a bad thing for us? I'll accept that. I won't google for it or ask you to define it. I'll just assume that it is a medium for lousy articles. If and and when I lose the rethoric line because I don't know what Harpers is, I'll check it. Definitions are quite useful at times but this isn't one of them.