Cobol's File System Vs. RDBMs...
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: COBOL: Don`t Call It a Comeback
Next: All X'0D' lost during reading line sequential file using microfocus se
From: Howard Brazee on 25 Jul 2008 09:31 On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:02:19 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >While it may seem that way to you, that isn't what I intended. My intention >was that the owners of the data would have the right to manipulate it. >Rather than "them as touched it last, owns it" it was more along the lines >of "them as owns it can touch it any time they like." Ownership of data isn't a two-valued thing. Some data are owned to various degrees by accounting, sales, finance, management, the customers, and the state. We can't give all of them full rights to manipulate them nor even to read them. Instead, we need to have established rules that are more complex than assigning a particular owner for a specific datum.
From: Howard Brazee on 25 Jul 2008 09:41 On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:54:34 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >>The advent of systems that can dynamically allocate more space indefinitely >>as required kind of rendered it redundant. > >Space could be allocated indefinitely - within the limits of the Operating >System and such; I recall something about the WANG VS not allowing records >larger than 2,000 characters - in the systems described, Mr Dashwood... >but it required a bit of attention and questions along the lines of 'what >causes us to do this?' and 'how should we best structure our efforts?' There always is a trade-off. If we design for any possible growth in all foreseeable directions, we might be spending so much that the non-foreseeable direction we end up with will have to fit our old design - not the optimal design for then. Let's say my 20 year old personal computer was designed that way, sufficiently to cost $100,000. Would it be better than a $2,000 replacement that I could get today? Sometimes it is better to get what we need today and replace it tomorrow with what fits tomorrow better.
From: Anonymous on 25 Jul 2008 09:53 In article <7nlj849b8ev27htjlbnbafnonmkr43j1jd(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:54:34 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>>The advent of systems that can dynamically allocate more space indefinitely >>>as required kind of rendered it redundant. >> >>Space could be allocated indefinitely - within the limits of the Operating >>System and such; I recall something about the WANG VS not allowing records >>larger than 2,000 characters - in the systems described, Mr Dashwood... >>but it required a bit of attention and questions along the lines of 'what >>causes us to do this?' and 'how should we best structure our efforts?' > >There always is a trade-off. If we design for any possible growth in >all foreseeable directions, we might be spending so much that the >non-foreseeable direction we end up with will have to fit our old >design - not the optimal design for then. Mr Brazee, not being able to see what will happen in non-forseeable directions is something which should be forseen... 'I do not know that I do not know', as Wittgenstein said. [snip] >Sometimes it is better to get what we need today and replace it >tomorrow with what fits tomorrow better. Sometimes it is better to forgo what you want today in order to concentrate resources on getting what you need tomorrow... but sometimes anything is anything else, including this statement. DD
From: Anonymous on 25 Jul 2008 09:59 In article <4vij845ul4bvac9s01k556sffl6soiht53(a)4ax.com>, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:26:43 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: [snip] >>A newly-married couple or a family with two snall children >>can fit comfortably into a compact car; as they age or family size >>increases a different vehicle is needed for comfort... this is a >>predictable result of growth.' > >Imagine test driving a new car the way we test new software. Imagine a satirical piece about how General Motors compared its technology with Microsoft's... wait, didn't someone do just that very thing nigh a decade back? http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/autos.asp DD
From: Anonymous on 25 Jul 2008 10:12
In article <6eu16tF8ntd0U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > > ><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:g6cfd5$j68$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >> In article <6etqhuF8q2c8U1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>> >>><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message >>>news:g6c6hj$srk$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >>>> In article <6esodiF8oskkU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>>>>IT does NOT own the data and IT should not have exclusive access to it. >>>> >>>> Mr Dashwood, this needs clarification. There are, I believe, several >>>> kinds of access. >>>> >>>> Who do you believe to have the responsibility for insuring the accuracy >>>> of >>>> data used for a company's vital (including, but not limited to, >>>> strategic, >>>> tactical, structural and legal-compliance) data? >>> >>>Er... that would be the corporate insurers... Phoenix Life, maybe...? :-) >>> >>>If you mean ensuring the accuracy of data, then whoever is manipulating it >>>takes responsibility for the manipulations they apply. >> >> No, Mr Dashwood, I intended 'insure' to be used in the sense of >> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insure , 2. >> > >Of course... the American corruption of "ensure" , now recognised by the >OED... The world is going to Hell in a hand cart... :-) Ahhhhh, for the Oldene Dayse, when a word was used in one way such as *ten* words are not used, today! If the world is going that way, Mr Dashwood, would you rather be a passenger or have an active hand in steering it? > >> What you seem to be saying in 'whoever is manipulating it takes >> responsibility for the manipulations they apply' you seem to be applying >> the classic 'them as touched it last, owns it' and that, in my experience, >> can lead to more problems than it purports to solve. > >While it may seem that way to you, that isn't what I intended. My intention >was that the owners of the data would have the right to manipulate it. >Rather than "them as touched it last, owns it" it was more along the lines >of "them as owns it can touch it any time they like." Mr Dashwood, things may be different in other places... in my part of the world there are creatures called 'auditors' and 'accountants' and 'duly-appointed representatives of local, state and Federal governments' who are very, *very* interested in how accurately data represent the activities they purport to represent. Once a sale is booked, in one place and under one set of circumstances, there are people who frown upon re-booking it under different ones. Once a certain number of widgets are sold the tax-ramifications of the sales change. Once someone reports an accident the date and time of the reportage is fixed. As much as the sales department might want to change bookings it cannot, unless it wants to run afoul of corporate policy or The Law. As much as a company might want to report selling a certain number of widgets it cannot and as much as an insurance-company might want to change the date and time an accident was reported it cannot. Whose job is it to make sure that the desires of those you call 'owners' do not run afoul of corporate policy or The Law? I was taught that this was one of the jobs of IT... it appears that we were taught differently. >> >> [snip] >> >>>Sure. It comes down to people having the right access permissions so they >>>can maintain their own data and be responsible for it. >> >> Hmmmmm... for some reason the Confucian concept of 'rectification of >> names' comes to mind. > >I try to apply cheng-ming on a daily basis in the things I write and even in >speech. There we differ, Mr Dashwood... I try to apply the Wittgensteinian 'the meaning of a word is in its use', looking less to language and more to situation. DD |