|
> It's interesting that a debate on DDS and display files turns to database > modelling. However I don't think the "design shift of view" has really > shifted too far from our current modelling practices. Why should "changing > a record structure" on the fly be an issue. If we want a real design shift > we need to stop thinking in terms of files and record formats and more in > terms of the relationships that exist between individual data components. > And yes James you're right - the way we store information has to change. > > We've based our database structure on the physical appearance of business > documents as they were printed on paper. Now that we've replicated this > "paper" document into an electronic form and stored it in our database, we > create a slew of programs to query this information in a 100 different > ways. What we need to recognize is that a business document means different > things to different people in an organization - what the CFO and the > assembly line supervisor need to see from a purchase order are two > different things. The separation between business documents as implemented > in most databases tends to be reflected in most workflow processes. Why do > we separate "invoices" from "P.O's"? In reality it's just the > "representation" of the same data that changes. The presentation of > information (call it the GUI) on my screen should reflect my needs and my > role within an organization - it should not be a basis for how the data is >stored. > > Rob Dixon's earlier thread attempted to fire up a debate on the subject of > new database models. Given such an "encapsulated" business database we > could focus on providing tools that would allow people to access > information through more intuitive methods (such as function) than having > to specify fields in records in files. We could all be looking the same set > of data in entirely different ways - there would be no purpose or need in > having fixed screen presentations and the DDS debate would be moot. I'm interested in this topic of a new data model, but as of yet I haven't heard anything that I can "sink my teeth into". I don't understand how this database would look. Could you elaborate. I'm not much of a theory person - I like pictures, examples and analogies. Thanks. Joe Teff Information Technology Consultant IBM Certified Specialist - AS/400 RPG Programmer Quality Data Systems Minneapolis, MN +--- | This is the Midrange System Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com. | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com. | To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.