Re: A database theory resource - ideas
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:31:20 GMT
Message-ID: <IpOUh.25110$PV3.253304_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>>On Mar 16, 3:58 pm, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I found one of the most interesting parts in a gargantuan recent
>>>thread was the listing of priorities for reaching a certain audience
>>>and determining what one wants to get across (Thanks to bob for that.
>>>You may object to his style but I've found there can be lot of value
>>>in his posts).
>>
>>>Anyhow I have discovered a lot over the last year since my arrival,
>>>and as such I often feel the urge to contribute back to general
>>>knowledge in the field. So with the loss of sites such as dbdebunk and
>>>the general lack of a simple central resource for database theory I am
>>>intending to put together a form of FAQ site. Hopefully this will be
>>>useful to reducing retro-activity in the field, as well as being a
>>>useful educational resource. Additionally any audience is self-
>>>selecting and this can only ease a lot of the frustrations I have in
>>>trying to convince those in entrenched positions of advancements over
>>>the last few decades. Perhaps it may even provide a reference link for
>>>common arguments that continually arise. Who knows.
>>
>>Good idea.
>>
>>
>>>Anyhow I am initially aiming to concisely cover the following topics:
>>
>>>* The vital nature of separating conceptual/logical/physical layers in
>>>data modelling
>>
>>Agreed. Suggestion: Why not create a *Data Modeling* section to put
>>the separation between logical and physical in perspective?
>>Demonstrating that is perfectly applyable even using crappy SQL
>>Systems is a strong argument against nonsense. On the same variation:
>>why not distinguish an *Implementation* vs *Fundamental*
>>perspective...Such structure may help sharpen the presentation of
>>concepts...
>>
>>
>>>* Working in terms of Propositions and not Objects
>>
>>Interesting. That would interesting for OO audiences desiring to
>>learn more about data management...Maybe a section *RM for OO Thinking
>>Developpers*
>>
>>
>>>* The argument against OID's (and hence for the information principle)
>>
>>I am not convinced a defensive attitude toward OID aberration is
>>effective in promoting RM. But maybe you could create a *Debunk* or
>>*BS* section and put some strong critical articles...
>>
>>
>>>* Why Navigation was replaced by Declaration
>>
>>Agreed. I would see it in some kind of *Why RM is superior*
>>
>>
>>>* That Data models involve not just structure, but also manipulation
>>>and integrity.
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>
>>>* Why hypertext models are insufficient (due to irreducible tuples)
>>>(web 3.0 ... good grief)
>>
>>Interesting.
>>
>>
>>>* What semistructured data is (or rather is not).
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>
>>>I am planning to omit well covered ground such as eliminating
>>>redundancy and anomalies through normalization, simply referring to
>>>external links. Obviously all of the above has been covered somewhere
>>>in the literature, so the aim is rather to produce a central, concise
>>>and hence accessible resource as opposed to resorting to a text-book/
>>>academic paper format.
>>
>>Good luck. I encourage you in doing that.
>>
>>
>>>The main purpose is to provide a purely educational resource, with as
>>>little impartiality as I can muster, constraining to established
>>>theory and facts, or clear logical arguments.
>>
>>>So my question to cdt is to ask what /you/ believe the priorities for
>>>such a resource would be?
>>>- which pivotal questions are most misunderstood?
>>>- where does most ignorance lie in our field?
>>>- are there are any crucial topics that you believe it would be useful
>>>to address that I have not listed.
>>
>>Some articles I wish I could see in a site...
>>
>>1) The Impedance Mismatch Myth
>>2) On why are set operations are intrinsically superior to procedural
>>approaches
>>3) On the limitations of direct image dbms's systems (ORACLE, DB2, SQL
>>Server) as opposed to non direct image systems
>>4) On relating the current systems and architectures promoted by major
>>editors and why they are doomed to fail
>>...and so forth...
>>
>>
>>>Any input is gratefully received.
>>
>>See above...Let me know if you need any help (hosting).
>>
>>Hope this helps...
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:31:20 GMT
Message-ID: <IpOUh.25110$PV3.253304_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
JOG wrote:
> On Mar 16, 4:05 pm, "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote: >
>>On Mar 16, 3:58 pm, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I found one of the most interesting parts in a gargantuan recent
>>>thread was the listing of priorities for reaching a certain audience
>>>and determining what one wants to get across (Thanks to bob for that.
>>>You may object to his style but I've found there can be lot of value
>>>in his posts).
>>
>>>Anyhow I have discovered a lot over the last year since my arrival,
>>>and as such I often feel the urge to contribute back to general
>>>knowledge in the field. So with the loss of sites such as dbdebunk and
>>>the general lack of a simple central resource for database theory I am
>>>intending to put together a form of FAQ site. Hopefully this will be
>>>useful to reducing retro-activity in the field, as well as being a
>>>useful educational resource. Additionally any audience is self-
>>>selecting and this can only ease a lot of the frustrations I have in
>>>trying to convince those in entrenched positions of advancements over
>>>the last few decades. Perhaps it may even provide a reference link for
>>>common arguments that continually arise. Who knows.
>>
>>Good idea.
>>
>>
>>>Anyhow I am initially aiming to concisely cover the following topics:
>>
>>>* The vital nature of separating conceptual/logical/physical layers in
>>>data modelling
>>
>>Agreed. Suggestion: Why not create a *Data Modeling* section to put
>>the separation between logical and physical in perspective?
>>Demonstrating that is perfectly applyable even using crappy SQL
>>Systems is a strong argument against nonsense. On the same variation:
>>why not distinguish an *Implementation* vs *Fundamental*
>>perspective...Such structure may help sharpen the presentation of
>>concepts...
>>
>>
>>>* Working in terms of Propositions and not Objects
>>
>>Interesting. That would interesting for OO audiences desiring to
>>learn more about data management...Maybe a section *RM for OO Thinking
>>Developpers*
>>
>>
>>>* The argument against OID's (and hence for the information principle)
>>
>>I am not convinced a defensive attitude toward OID aberration is
>>effective in promoting RM. But maybe you could create a *Debunk* or
>>*BS* section and put some strong critical articles...
>>
>>
>>>* Why Navigation was replaced by Declaration
>>
>>Agreed. I would see it in some kind of *Why RM is superior*
>>
>>
>>>* That Data models involve not just structure, but also manipulation
>>>and integrity.
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>
>>>* Why hypertext models are insufficient (due to irreducible tuples)
>>>(web 3.0 ... good grief)
>>
>>Interesting.
>>
>>
>>>* What semistructured data is (or rather is not).
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>
>>>I am planning to omit well covered ground such as eliminating
>>>redundancy and anomalies through normalization, simply referring to
>>>external links. Obviously all of the above has been covered somewhere
>>>in the literature, so the aim is rather to produce a central, concise
>>>and hence accessible resource as opposed to resorting to a text-book/
>>>academic paper format.
>>
>>Good luck. I encourage you in doing that.
>>
>>
>>>The main purpose is to provide a purely educational resource, with as
>>>little impartiality as I can muster, constraining to established
>>>theory and facts, or clear logical arguments.
>>
>>>So my question to cdt is to ask what /you/ believe the priorities for
>>>such a resource would be?
>>>- which pivotal questions are most misunderstood?
>>>- where does most ignorance lie in our field?
>>>- are there are any crucial topics that you believe it would be useful
>>>to address that I have not listed.
>>
>>Some articles I wish I could see in a site...
>>
>>1) The Impedance Mismatch Myth
>>2) On why are set operations are intrinsically superior to procedural
>>approaches
>>3) On the limitations of direct image dbms's systems (ORACLE, DB2, SQL
>>Server) as opposed to non direct image systems
>>4) On relating the current systems and architectures promoted by major
>>editors and why they are doomed to fail
>>...and so forth...
>>
>>
>>>Any input is gratefully received.
>>
>>See above...Let me know if you need any help (hosting).
>>
>>Hope this helps...
> > Hi cimode - thanks for the feedback. I have found your posts a lot > more constructive recently. I would say that I don't want the resource > to seem like an RM advert, rather something more neutral, focusing on > the theory of what makes /good data modelling/. It just so happens > that RM matches most of them, but I don't want to preclude that there > will be other models in the future that also do (I don't think any of > us think the current RM will be the last word). I've summarized some > of your suggestions: > > * A data modelling introduction section (good idea) > * Talk about the positive nature of content-based addressing as > opposed to just the negative aspects of OID's. > * On why are set operations are preferable to procedural approaches > > I am currently uncertain about "The Impedance Mismatch Myth", and your > other suggestions are outside of my remit of knowledge so I would not > be confident in addressing them thoroughly. regards J.
I would like to see a more general site that places database theory in its proper context within the broader subject of applied mathematics. Received on Mon Apr 16 2007 - 19:31:20 CEST