Re: The term "theory" as in "database theory"

On Jan 27, 7:42 am, mAsterdam <mAster..._at_vrijdag.org> wrote:
> dawn wrote: > I have been working on a question related to the term "theory" and
> > decided I first should get a better idea of what this term means to
> > others. Below is the dictionary.com list of definitions. Which of
> > the following comes closest to the use of the term "theory" in this
> > ng as in "database theory", or is there another someone wants to
> > provide?
>
> The group of people wanting to discuss something
> (fromhttp://groups.google.nl/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_frm/thread...

Thanks for posting this. Someone e-mailed it to me a while back, which let me know that the topics I was interested in were also part of the charter. Good idea connecting this to the likely intended meaning of "database.theory" by those starting the ng.

> CHARTER: Discussion of topics relating to advances in database
> technology

Good to see that it is related to technology and not only something more abstract than that.

> including debate on theoretical,
>
> prototypical and performance aspects of Database
> Systems, Data Modelling

While I do not consider myself a database theorist, I do consider a key interest to be data modeling, so, again, very good to see that in the charter.

> and Logical and Physical
> Database Design.
>
> Specifically excluded are discussions relating to
> implemented DBMS whether commercial or not. )

Make sense, other than for illustration purposes and perhaps comparison of the underlying models. There is plenty of SQL presented, which is acceptable.

> had to find a suitable label, a flag.
> The participants could have wandered away from their charter
> as well as from the label and mainly discuss Japanese cooking,
> but most of the time the label pushes the discussion in the
> general direction of what people think of when they read it.
> A lurker, attracted by the flag "comp.databases.theory" finding out
> that Japanese cooking is the main topic, would only stay if he
> also happened to like to discuss sushi.
>
> Like Bernard Peek I think building on a definition
> of "theory" in "comp.databases.theory" is working in the wrong
> direction. It is whatever the group accepts today.
> Tomorrow it may be different.

That's fine, but I had some specific reasons, including the one mentioned and the comment by Marshall indicating he thought I did not appreciate theory (when I do). I thought perhaps I did not have the same meaning of theory as others. This is not database "theory" as in "the theory of relativity," for example.

> Having said that, some comments:
>
> >From dictionary.com
>
> > "1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of
> > explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
> As soon as people started to write up inventories, IOU's, the
> problem of keeping the data up-to-date emerged.
>
> (data in a broad sense, not limited to computers - I say
> this because some even deny the existence of data outside
> computers by making computers a defining part of "data".)
>
> So, they started to see the data itself as a valuable resource.
> They started organizing the data beyond just archiving all documents.
>
> How did they do that?
> What principles did/do they use?
> How did those change?
> What triggered these changes?
>
> These could be topics for database theory in sense number 1.

So, you are thinking that database theory does look at some phenomena and attempt to explain it with a mathematical theory? This is where I think those who are pushing the Occam's razor comment must come out. For Keith, I think of Occam's razor as relating to explanations. If you try to explain the movement of the planets and you can come up with multiple mathematical models for it, then pick the one that is the simplest you can get to align with scientific observations, but no simpler.

With 3, 4, and 5 below, we are talking about creating the rules, the theory for purposes of excellence in software development (some might have other goals), so Occam's razor would not fit, even if simplicity is still a valuable attribute for a theory (in my opinion, simplicity for the user/developer is one of the important features, even if sacrificing some simplicity in the software written for their use.).

> In Kenneth Downs' words, /database/ as a phenomenon
> whose principles need to be discovered

In that case, if we are working to uncover the secrets of "the database" (in the sky) and model it, then Occam's razor would be applicable, but one would need a way to measure how closely the mathematical model aligns with this database phenomenon, as one can investigate how closely the theory of relativity aligns with reality.

> He wrote: > A database is not a phenomenon whose principles need to be
> > discovered, as for instance the phenomenon of gravity
> > is the subject of Einstein's theory of relativity.
> > A database is a man-made thing whose principles are
> > crafted by the human mind to accomplish human goals.
>
> ... and so /not/ a phenomenon? I disagree.
>
> However, most participants in cdt limit the environment
> to computers.

Agreed.

> Note that it (database as a phenomenon) would go somewhat
> against the cdt charter because it is about implemented databases.

Or some platonic form, perhaps?

> > 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in
> > contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as
> > reporting matters of actual fact.Nice.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos
>
> > 3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging
> > to one subject: number theory.
> > 4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or
> > methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.I think this is close to what the group accepts today.

Yes, this one makes sense.

> > 5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the
> > method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.RM, a vociferous group only likes to discuss this one.
> MV, you and some others like to discuss this one.

Yes, this also makes sense and aligns with the charter's interest in data modeling, for example.

> > 6. contemplation or speculation.This is just a rude #2.
>
> > 7. guess or conjecture."6a.

agreed.

> Proposal:
> Database theory:
> The part of information theory that deals with
> dynamic collections of facts as valuable resources.

I don't disagree with it, but find it less useful than combining the meaning of "database" with 3, 4, & 5 above. Perhaps the charter and at least your def of database theory, perhaps some of these above related to theory, would be helpful in the glossary? Your call. Thanks and sorry that when I clicked your name, I didn't verify that your posting was the one that came up. Dag. --dawn

> --
> "The person who says it cannot be done
> should not interrupt the person doing it."
> Chinese Proverb.
Received on Sun Jan 28 2007 - 05:14:01 CET