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: Pete Dashwood on 25 Jul 2008 09:02 <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... :-) > 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." > > [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. (Admittedly, I don't always get it right...)Just because you choose to take a particular meaning doesn't mean it is the only possible one, or because something "seems" a certain way to you, that's how it was intended. Indeed, how lucky we are that we can confirm intended meaning by instant communication across a planet, something that could not be dreamed of in Confucius' time. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." > > DD >
From: Pete Dashwood on 25 Jul 2008 09:20 <docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:g6cetp$48g$1(a)reader1.panix.com... > In article <6etr5fF8qfmiU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >> >><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message >>news:g6c68j$cq3$1(a)reader1.panix.com... > > [snip] > >>> When new uses were found the FILLER decreased... and when the FILLER >>> finally disappeared it was the job of anyone who dealt with programs >>> that >>> touched the file (or who dealt with the programmers who dealt with the >>> programs) to say 'The system has reached its design limits and budget >>> must >>> be allocated to compare former needs with current ones so that a plan >>> might be developed which results in a better meeting of our changed >>> requirements. 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.' >> >>Like you say, that was decades ago... >> >>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?' > > It seems similar to the Eternal Struggle between 'look before you leap' > and 'he who hesitates, is lost'. > > DD > ....or, "too many cooks spoil the broth" but "many hands make light work"... My favourite is the Chinese one:"Do not use an axe to remove a fly from your friend's forehead..." Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Howard Brazee on 25 Jul 2008 09:23 On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:26:13 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >I understand there is an element of seriousness in what you're saying, but >if you go down that route it ends in tears. > >IT does NOT own the data and IT should not have exclusive access to it. > >People who OWN the data should be able to manipulate it if they want to. Sometimes there are directives from on high limiting ownership privileges. These may be legal issues, or policies within a company. Maybe sales "owns" the sales data - but the salesmen can't manipulate them however they want. Obviously, neither should IT. But IT needs to enforce the guidelines that the enterprise and society demand.
From: Michael Mattias on 25 Jul 2008 09:24 > ."too many cooks spoil the broth" but "many hands make light work"... God helps him who helps himself. Thou Shalt Not Steal.
From: Howard Brazee on 25 Jul 2008 09:26
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:31:32 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >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? > >I would argue that those who are responsible for this insuring data >integrity have exclusive authority to limit INSERT/UPDATE access. >READ/BROWSE access is another matter, entire, Even then, privacy laws can provide limits that we need to enforce. The enterprise and its lawyers need to determine rules for read access as well as update access. And IT needs to enforce those rules. |