Re: Something new for the New Year (2008).

On Jan 3, 7:49 pm, Rob <rmpsf..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 1. Rob said the following:
>
> > Some (like JOG) interpret the data structures (relations) of a
> > relational database as sets of "true" logical statements.
>
> In reply, JOG said:
>
> >>I'm sorry Rob, but that's not an interpretation. Thats /what it is/.
> >>The relations of a relational database encode true facts about the
> >>world.
>
> But according to Marshall:
>
> >as far as the RM goes, it models our
> >ideas about real-world entities and our ideas about real-world
> >relationships in exactly the same way: as mathematical relations.

Your implication seems to be that there is some inconsistency or disagreement between what JOG and I said. I don't see any disagreement there.

> So as long as there is no universal consensus about how
> relational databases and the relational model allow us to represent
> "true facts" and "entities and ... relationships", I think I should be
> allowed to have my primitive view of a relational database as a
> set of sets of vectors. (Please, hold your applause until the end.)

It seems to me that JOG's "facts about the world" and my "ideas about real-world entities and ... relationships" refer to the same thing.

> 2. Marshall asked me a number of questions which I tried to
> answer. And although I told Marshall that I just wanted to show
> cdt folk something that I thought was new and interesting, Marshall
> insists he needs much, much more.
>
> But, JOG tells me that "If [I] can't respond to Marhsall's [sp]
> questions directly in a paragraph or so, then alarm bells go off."
>
> Rome wasn't built in a day.

I don't think I asked for "much, much" more. All I asked for was some modest indication of why your way was "better" in the most generic sense of "better." It wasn't I who introduced revenue-per-employee! And in fact I am pretty clear you left the "interesting" part out of your intended new-and-interesting thing: I *still* don't know what you find interesting about it.

I mean, how hard would is it to take two hand-picked schemas and show how a query gets shorter or easier to understand or whatever under the new approach?

> 3. Curiously, the only indisputable comment came from Jan Hidders:

This is not an unusual circumstance.

> 4. Here are two Q&As from a July 28, 2007 interview of Scott
> Berkun by Guy Kawasaki. See if they remind you of anything:
>
> "Question: Why do innovators face such rejection and negativity?
> Answer: It's human nature -- we protect ourselves from change. We like
> to think we're progressive, but every wave of innovation has been much
> slower than we're told. The telegraph, the telephone, the PC, and the
> internet all took decades to develop from ideas into things ordinary
> people used. As a species we're threatened by change and it takes a
> long time to convince people to change their behavior, or part with
> their money."
>
> Question: What are the primary determinants of the speed of adoption
> of innovation?
> Answer: The classic research on the topic is Diffusion of Innovation
> by Rogers, which defines factors that hold up well today. The surprise
> to us is that they're all sociological: based on people's perception
> of value and their fear of risks -- which often has little to do with
> our view of how amazing a particular technology is.
>
> For the full interview, see
>
> http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2007/06/ten-questions-w.html
>
> I would also commend you to Geoffrey A. Moore's classic "Crossing
> the Chasm" and Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point". These aren't
> database texts, but treatises on how some innovations and inventions
> lead to sucessful products.

Harumph. I think you're starting to condescend here. The fact that everyone scoffed at Einstein for a year doesn't mean that everyone who gets scoffed at for a year is the next Einstein. Most good ideas get scoffed at; most bad ideas get scoffed at too. Let's not forget Sturgeon's Law either.

Berkun isn't the source of any particular innovation that I'm aware of. He's someone who studied others' innovations. And if he only studied the ones that were ultimately successful, he's in no position to say anything intelligent about what the right response to new ideas is; his sample is hopelessly biased. If he really wanted to understand the world's ratio of good ideas to bad, he should read sci.math.

Marshall Received on Fri Jan 04 2008 - 06:03:46 CET