 | |
a theory of organizational intelligence
comp.databases.theory comp.databases.theory
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
 
| ||||
| ||||
|
Re: a theory of organizational intelligence -
10-14-2003
, 07:36 AM
|
I am inclined to think that an expression such as a "quanta" can indeed be used in this context, given that knowledge tends to come in "bundles" and a certain subset of knowledge is required in order for any given piece of knowledge to make any sense. But as to the rest of the paper, I have no idea exactly what the point is. |
by means of three different forms of computer systems software:
1) Operating and network operating system software (eg: Windows XP, Unix,
etc)
(note: this one can be ignored, for the purposes of OI specific to the
organisation)
2) Relational database management system software (eg: Oracle, DB2, SQL
Server, etc)
This s/w is on the database server.
3) Application system software specific to the organisation (millions of
examples).
This s/w is generally loaded to the end-user (clients) of the organisation,
as well
as having components loaded on the server.
Because OI is spread across the above 2 computer system software
environments
(2 and 3) it is not defined in one place. When you examine the manner by
which
organisations currently utilise database software and application software
you will
see that the solutions involve massive redundancies of definitions.
Examples include where database fields need to be defined in the code of the
client application, and the classic, adding a column to a table.
My point in all of the above was to try and explain that I have pioneered
a mechanism whereby application system components can be constructed
out of the native utilities of the RDBMS environment.
OI defined under this method need only be defined once.
The application software is now within the RDBMS.
Quote:
|
However, judging by the responses, I think my advice would be never to fall in love with your theory. |
to demonstrate it with SQL Server. It may be the
terminology used however by which I cannot properly
communicate the essence of this matter.
Responses however were unnecessarily parochial,
lacking in any form of desperation and utterly without
any merit, so I had no hesitation in flaming the
turkeys.
Quote:
|
At least, define what is meant by the term "organisational intelligence", such that we may begin our deliberations from a less ignorant standpoint. |
related to computer systems (ie: distinct from people/employees).
"Summarily OI may be defined as the sum of the data objects
and the source code objects associated with application systems
hosted by an organisation"
The article went on to examine emergent considerations from this
summary.
Quote:
|
If by organisational intelligence, you are referring to information, then intelligence is the wrong word to use. Intelligence is what you may need in order to make sense of your data. Extraction of "information" from data is of course related to Information Theory (of which there is a great deal of research and, yes, formulae) and Data Mining. |
Hopefully I have responded to this in a separate thread.
Thanks for your considered comments.
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
#22
| |||
| |||
|
|
Thanks for the feedback. "Robin Tucker" <idontwanttobespammedanymore (AT) reallyidont (DOT) com> wrote in message news:bmej0b$pn5$1$8302bc10 (AT) news (DOT) demon.co.uk... I am inclined to think that an expression such as a "quanta" can indeed be used in this context, given that knowledge tends to come in "bundles" and a certain subset of knowledge is required in order for any given piece of knowledge to make any sense. But as to the rest of the paper, I have no idea exactly what the point is. The point is that technology today stores this knowledge in computer systems by means of three different forms of computer systems software: 1) Operating and network operating system software (eg: Windows XP, Unix, etc) (note: this one can be ignored, for the purposes of OI specific to the organisation) 2) Relational database management system software (eg: Oracle, DB2, SQL Server, etc) This s/w is on the database server. 3) Application system software specific to the organisation (millions of examples). This s/w is generally loaded to the end-user (clients) of the organisation, as well as having components loaded on the server. Because OI is spread across the above 2 computer system software environments (2 and 3) it is not defined in one place. When you examine the manner by which organisations currently utilise database software and application software you will see that the solutions involve massive redundancies of definitions. Examples include where database fields need to be defined in the code of the client application, and the classic, adding a column to a table. My point in all of the above was to try and explain that I have pioneered a mechanism whereby application system components can be constructed out of the native utilities of the RDBMS environment. OI defined under this method need only be defined once. The application software is now within the RDBMS. However, judging by the responses, I think my advice would be never to fall in love with your theory. The theory is sound. I have engineered software to demonstrate it with SQL Server. It may be the terminology used however by which I cannot properly communicate the essence of this matter. Responses however were unnecessarily parochial, lacking in any form of desperation and utterly without any merit, so I had no hesitation in flaming the turkeys. At least, define what is meant by the term "organisational intelligence", such that we may begin our deliberations from a less ignorant standpoint. The article did provide a "working summary definition" of OI as related to computer systems (ie: distinct from people/employees). "Summarily OI may be defined as the sum of the data objects and the source code objects associated with application systems hosted by an organisation" The article went on to examine emergent considerations from this summary. If by organisational intelligence, you are referring to information, then intelligence is the wrong word to use. Intelligence is what you may need in order to make sense of your data. Extraction of "information" from data is of course related to Information Theory (of which there is a great deal of research and, yes, formulae) and Data Mining. Hopefully I have responded to this in a separate thread. Thanks for your considered comments. Pete Brown Falls Creek OZ |
#23
| |||||
| |||||
|
|
I still don't see this as useful. Using your definitions - OI indeed exists in many tiers but it does not have to. I don't believe this to be an insight. One can already write business logic into stored procedures rather than some middle tier and many do. |
to be written anywhere can be written as stored procedures
that are coordinated by a small executable "portal software"
which lives on the client.
Quote:
|
You seem to be suggesting the creation of a "middle tier" to abstract the database from the client. Please forgive me but, ugh, this has already been done! |
The 'tier's to which I refer in my article are very specific.
They themselves are an abstraction from the standard
computer communication protocol stack. They are three
different software environments ...
1) The operating (and network operating) system software (client & server)
2) The RDBMS software (server)
3) The database application system software (normally on client, and
server - perhaps an application server)
Examples: 1) windows XP, unix, etc. (small range)
Examples: 2) SQL Server, DB2, Oracle (small range)
Examples: 3) Financial software, SAP, Practice Management Software,
the list is endless. (the range is unlimited)
Quote:
|
If you are suggesting the removal of the middle tier then this has also already been done (it was done before the middle tier was added!). |
software from the client environment, or anywhere external to
the RDBMS such that it is developed and maintained internal
to the RDBMS environment (at the atomic level by means of
database stored procedures)
Quote:
|
If you are suggesting something totally different, such as the maintenance of "objects" in the database, walking around with their operating methods and properties (an object oriented data model) then, I'm afraid to say, this has also already been done! I fail to see the point of your paper. |
A small portal software is loaded to the client by which the end user
in an organisation is given acess to run items on an organisational
sensitive
menu of components of a database application system.
However 100% of these components are stored procedures resident
in the RDBMS environment. Consequently the entire system except the
portal software is internal to the RDBMS environment.
We have a database for the data and a database for the stored procedures
(ie: programs) and when a backup is done we have everything intact.
Quote:
|
"mountain man" <hobbit (AT) southern_seaweed (DOT) com.op> wrote in message news:55Sib.150710$bo1.16913 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au... Thanks for the feedback. "Robin Tucker" <idontwanttobespammedanymore (AT) reallyidont (DOT) com> wrote in message news:bmej0b$pn5$1$8302bc10 (AT) news (DOT) demon.co.uk... I am inclined to think that an expression such as a "quanta" can indeed be used in this context, given that knowledge tends to come in "bundles" and a certain subset of knowledge is required in order for any given piece of knowledge to make any sense. But as to the rest of the paper, I have no idea exactly what the point is. The point is that technology today stores this knowledge in computer systems by means of three different forms of computer systems software: 1) Operating and network operating system software (eg: Windows XP, Unix, etc) (note: this one can be ignored, for the purposes of OI specific to the organisation) 2) Relational database management system software (eg: Oracle, DB2, SQL Server, etc) This s/w is on the database server. 3) Application system software specific to the organisation (millions of examples). This s/w is generally loaded to the end-user (clients) of the organisation, as well as having components loaded on the server. Because OI is spread across the above 2 computer system software environments (2 and 3) it is not defined in one place. When you examine the manner by which organisations currently utilise database software and application software you will see that the solutions involve massive redundancies of definitions. Examples include where database fields need to be defined in the code of the client application, and the classic, adding a column to a table. My point in all of the above was to try and explain that I have pioneered a mechanism whereby application system components can be constructed out of the native utilities of the RDBMS environment. OI defined under this method need only be defined once. The application software is now within the RDBMS. However, judging by the responses, I think my advice would be never to fall in love with your theory. The theory is sound. I have engineered software to demonstrate it with SQL Server. It may be the terminology used however by which I cannot properly communicate the essence of this matter. Responses however were unnecessarily parochial, lacking in any form of desperation and utterly without any merit, so I had no hesitation in flaming the turkeys. At least, define what is meant by the term "organisational intelligence", such that we may begin our deliberations from a less ignorant standpoint. The article did provide a "working summary definition" of OI as related to computer systems (ie: distinct from people/employees). "Summarily OI may be defined as the sum of the data objects and the source code objects associated with application systems hosted by an organisation" The article went on to examine emergent considerations from this summary. If by organisational intelligence, you are referring to information, then intelligence is the wrong word to use. Intelligence is what you may need in order to make sense of your data. Extraction of "information" from data is of course related to Information Theory (of which there is a great deal of research and, yes, formulae) and Data Mining. Hopefully I have responded to this in a separate thread. Thanks for your considered comments. Pete Brown Falls Creek OZ |
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.