From Newsgroup: comp.databases.theory

Hello everyone,
I recently got my degree in Computer Science and I feel I learned only notional-theoretical concepts and very few practical ones.
I'd like to learn more about data modeling and database design (of course, in the relational meaning, i.e. Dr. E. F. Codd), everything from the design, the idea, finding the entities and their attributes, the logical model, to solving relationships, finding the keys (primary and alternate) of the entities (No RecordIDs |a la 1960 Record Filing System), how to enforce Referential Integrity and Relational Integrity, Domain constraints, BEST PRACTICES, naming conventions etc, you get the idea.
I'd like to know what are the best books (except 700 pages bricks with "theoretical" and "professor-only" subjects), online courses (Udemy, PluralSight, CourseRa etc) or articles/papers to learn Data Modeling and (Relational) DataBase Design.
Pinging Derek Ignatius Asirvadem because the evidence can lead one to conclude he's one of the few who totally mastered the Relational Model. I'd really love tho receive an advice/response from Him.
Thank you.
P.S. English is not my mother tongue, please excuse any errors on my part.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.databases.theory

yankarinrg@gmail.com wrote:

Pinging Derek Ignatius Asirvadem because the evidence can lead one
to conclude he's one of the few who totally mastered the Relational
Model.

You were doing quite well there. I was going to take your request
seriously.

I'd really love tho receive an advice/response from Him.

I shall be fascinated by how that turns out for you.

Roy

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.databases.theory

On Saturday, 27 June 2020 07:01:12 UTC+10, yanka...@gmail.com wrote:
I recently got my degree in Computer Science and I feel I learned only notional-theoretical concepts and very few practical ones.

Yes. That is because all the textbooks and "academic" papers are anti-relational, written by either Date; Darwen; Fagin; etc, or their followers, supporting 1960's Record Filing Systems as "relational", and there is a massive drive to suppress the actual Relational Model. Further, where I would expect the professors to actually understand what they are teaching, and therefore determine the pig-poop for what it is, they do not, they merely parrot the filth without understanding.
The result is, whatever does get taught, is superficial pig-poop badged as "theory", as "science". Absolutely nothing of which can be used in the real world. Theory that is not practicable sucks, because it is mere fantasy, and this particular set of "theories" sucks dead sows.

I'd like to learn more about data modeling and database design (of course, in the relational meaning, i.e. Dr. E. F. Codd), everything from the design, the idea, finding the entities and their attributes, the logical model, to solving relationships, finding the keys (primary and alternate) of the entities (No RecordIDs |a la 1960 Record Filing System), how to enforce Referential Integrity and Relational Integrity, Domain constraints, BEST PRACTICES, naming conventions etc, you get the idea.

That is a big ask, and it will take years. It is best done with a mentor, and a real world project. Please feel free to open a thread with an example.

I'd like to know what are the best books (except 700 pages bricks with "theoretical" and "professor-only" subjects), online courses (Udemy, PluralSight, CourseRa etc) or articles/papers to learn Data Modeling and (Relational) DataBase Design.

There aren't any. In my 43 years in the business, I have not seen a single decent book on database design. All the available books, second to being pig-poop, cover other subjects (fragments) of the requirement, and with an elitist "theoretical" weight, no practical directions.
I am in the process of writing one, but it has to be expanded to overcome the mountain of pig poop that is established as the "science".
There are many free books (eBooks; PDFs) on the internet. All pure filth. You get what you pay for.
I train people after establishing a mentor relationship.
To get started:
1. Read only Codd
1.1 and anyone who actually practises Codd (sadly, that appears to be limited to one person and his customers).
2. Apply the Four Laws of thought, because it is a foundation of all science. That will enable you to identify pig-poop; non-science;, and eliminate it.
2.1 Note that Codd's 1971 paper, and his Relational Model/Tasmania contradict the rigid requirements in his Relational Model, and therefore are eliminated for anyone intending to implement the RM.
2.2 The forces of darkness that are enthroned in the pig sty, claim that precisely those papers are the "relational model". They do not disclose the fact that those papers had the explicit purpose of teaching the then embedded Hierarchical DBMS and other Record ID based DBMS to use some of the facilities of the Relational Model. Thus the Record ID (surrogate) methods that Codd suggest in those papers are limited to Record ID based systems.
We have had genuine Relational DBMS since 1984, as genuine SQL, so there is no need for first implementing the idiocy of Record ID based files, and then elevating them to provide a small degree of Relational capability. The uncorrupted mind can simply implement the Relational Model, and obtain 100% of its capabilities.
3. I have a fair amount of Answers to Questions on StackOverflow. My handle is PerformanceDBA. Go to my profile, list the Answers, and read anything that piques your interest. Note that even on SO, the marauding hordes of pig poop eaters are quite active.

Pinging Derek Ignatius Asirvadem because the evidence can lead one to conclude he's one of the few who totally mastered the Relational Model. I'd really love tho receive an advice/response from Him.

Thanks.
I trust that is from the evidence, of the mountain of pig poop, versus the small definitive papers re the Relational Model.
You can see from this forum, and even this thread that it is a war between truth vs falsity, between science vs pig-poop marketed as "science", between Codd/Asirvadem vs the Date/Darwen/Fagin Gulag, between Simplicity (truth) vs Complexity (falsity).
If you would like to avoid the noise that occurs on this channel, please feel free to email me directly. First-name dot last-name at gmail dot com.
You may enjoy the following thread, wherein I have taken an academic who /was/ imbued with the false "relational model", and crossed the line into the real one, on just one aspect - that anything can be defined in a Relational database, using Relational Keys, proving that the filth published as "science" re /the RM is limited is some way/, is false:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.databases.theory/2GHCadeG5sA Cheers
Derek
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.databases.theory

Hello Derek, it's a great honor to receive a reply from you.

That is a big ask, and it will take years. It is best done with a mentor, and a real world project. Please feel free to open a thread with an example.

Sure! I think only by practice and exercise it is possible to improve, not by wasting time on cumbersome, redundant "academic" and "theoretical" only book/material with zero application in real life.

I am in the process of writing one, but it has to be expanded to overcome the mountain of pig poop that is established as the "science".

Best news! Whenever you are done, please update us. A practical book (in the style of your StackOverflow replies - comprehensive, well explained, step by step etc) is VERY needed. Please also include all the various phases of modeling, maybe accompanied by a real world example. For example IDEF1X defines 5 phases:
1. Project initiation
2. Entity definition
3. Relationship definition
4. Key definitions
5. Attribute definition
I'm pretty sure you indeed follow there phases since IDEF1X is the standard for modelling Relational Databases (and not UML like I was taught at University and 95% of StackOverflow believes)

3. I have a fair amount of Answers to Questions on StackOverflow. My handle is PerformanceDBA. Go to my profile, list the Answers, and read anything that piques your interest. Note that even on SO, the marauding hordes of pig poop eaters are quite active.

I know, in fact I already have read lots of replies and documents from you before c.d.t.
Some questions for you:
1. I have noticed you were a great supporter of 5NF/6NF until 2015 circa. Your thought then changed in favour of 3NF. Is this still the case in mid 2020? I think Codd only defined up to 3NF, and any higher normal form is complete "academic" deceive, fraud, trick or rebrand of the original normal forms by DR. E. F. Codd i.e. to my understanding, 3NF is the fullest form of the Only and One original Relational Model defined by Codd, is that correct?
2. Could you please explain a bit more the Open Architecture standard from 1984 perfected in 1990 from a non-hardware point of view? (http://www.softwaregems.com.au/Documents/Article/Application%20Architecture/Open%20Architecture.pdf) I literally found zero results on Google.
Always appreciated.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.databases.theory

Op woensdag 1 juli 2020 om 12:06:47 UTC+2 schreef Roy Hann:

yanka...@gmail.com wrote:

Pinging Derek Ignatius Asirvadem because the evidence can lead one
to conclude he's one of the few who totally mastered the Relational
Model.

You were doing quite well there. I was going to take your request
seriously.

I'd really love tho receive an advice/response from Him.

I shall be fascinated by how that turns out for you.

Roy

No you won't be fascinated because you already know. He'll come out believing the shit loads of pig poop he's going to be fed is the real science.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.databases.theory

Op zondag 1 november 2020 om 19:38:59 UTC+1 schreef Erwin:

Op woensdag 1 juli 2020 om 12:06:47 UTC+2 schreef Roy Hann:

yanka...@gmail.com wrote:

Pinging Derek Ignatius Asirvadem because the evidence can lead one
to conclude he's one of the few who totally mastered the Relational Model.

You were doing quite well there. I was going to take your request seriously.

I'd really love tho receive an advice/response from Him.

I shall be fascinated by how that turns out for you.

Roy

No you won't be fascinated because you already know. He'll come out believing the shit loads of pig poop he's going to be fed is the real science.

In fact I should point out that he was actually not even remotely "doing well" at all ... Where he wrote "I recently got my degree in Computer Science and I feel I learned only notional-theoretical concepts and very few practical ones." any competent professional should have seen the red flag of "theory isn't practical". Sailor who sets out to sea without either rudder or compass etc. etc. ...
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.databases.theory

Erwin wrote:

Op zondag 1 november 2020 om 19:38:59 UTC+1 schreef Erwin:

any competent professional should have seen the red flag of "theory
isn't practical".

I admit I decided he was really just trolling so I didn't bother to trot
out my usual observation that theory is the scary name for
"best practice". (Which is not to say that all that is labelled best
practice is any such thing, nor that it is incapable of revision.)

Roy
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.databases.theory

On Monday, 2 November 2020 at 05:38:59 UTC+11, Erwin wrote:

Op woensdag 1 juli 2020 om 12:06:47 UTC+2 schreef Roy Hann:

yanka...@gmail.com wrote:

Pinging Derek Ignatius Asirvadem because the evidence can lead one
to conclude he's one of the few who totally mastered the Relational Model.

You were doing quite well there. I was going to take your request seriously.

I'd really love tho receive an advice/response from Him.

I shall be fascinated by how that turns out for you.

Roy

No you won't be fascinated because you already know. He'll come out believing the shit loads of pig poop he's going to be fed is the real science.

Marvellous.

That coming from:
- one of the non-scientists who, as evidenced, has been swallowing 50 years of pig poop
- who cannot discern science from pig poop
- Sniping at people who can make the discernment
- in hysterical ignorance (what, the sewer rat is not a scientist ?) that the question was answered four months ago, in separate threads
- the answer was scientific, which the sewer rat does not understand

Two sewer rats, who produce nothing, talking behind the backs of others, who have progressed and answered the question. You can't make this stuff up.

Cheers
Derek
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.databases.theory

==[1]==
On Wednesday, 4 November 2020 at 08:38:54 UTC+11, Erwin wrote:

Op zondag 1 november 2020 om 19:38:59 UTC+1 schreef Erwin:

Op woensdag 1 juli 2020 om 12:06:47 UTC+2 schreef Roy Hann:

yanka...@gmail.com wrote:

Pinging Derek Ignatius Asirvadem because the evidence can lead one
to conclude he's one of the few who totally mastered the Relational Model.

You were doing quite well there. I was going to take your request seriously.

I'd really love tho receive an advice/response from Him.

I shall be fascinated by how that turns out for you.

Roy

No you won't be fascinated because you already know. He'll come out believing the shit loads of pig poop he's going to be fed is the real science.

In fact I should point out that he was actually not even remotely "doing well" at all ... Where he wrote "I recently got my degree in Computer Science and I feel I learned only notional-theoretical concepts and very few practical ones." any competent professional should have seen the red flag of "theory isn't practical". Sailor who sets out to sea without either rudder or compass etc. etc. ...

==[2]==
On Tuesday, 1 December 2020 at 21:51:27 UTC+11, Roy Hann wrote:

Erwin wrote:

Op zondag 1 november 2020 om 19:38:59 UTC+1 schreef Erwin:
any competent professional should have seen the red flag of "theory
isn't practical".

I admit I decided he was really just trolling so I didn't bother to trot
out my usual observation that theory is the scary name for
"best practice". (Which is not to say that all that is labelled best practice is any such thing, nor that it is incapable of revision.)

Roy

Erwin Snout, the Rat Face himself.
He did not actually say that. So you and your cohort of pig-poop eaters perform your usual ritual of erecting a Straw Man argument (heavy on the straw, light on the argument), donning the mask of a "professional", dishonestly proposing something the young man did not say, and then burning it. Whoopdedoo, freaky creatures, you succeeded in burning down you own creation.
Meanwhile what he did say, remains untouched, the ashes simply blew away, like your intellect. And my answer, to the question, not to glorious your Straw Man, remains, neither found nor read by the non-scientists such as you.
Roy
You are blowing hard on a Straw Man made of dung, not on anything that was actually said. As evidenced you cannot make even simple discernments. I would say, eat shit and die, but hey, you and your fellow sewer rats are already doing that, for fifty years.

Cheers
Derek
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2