Earlier this month I went to the Third Manifesto Implementers’ Workshop at Northumbria University in Newcastle. A group of us discussed recent developments in implementing the relational data model.
The relational data model was proposed by E. F. Codd in 1969 in response to the complex, hierarchical, data storage solutions of the time which required programs to be written and compiled for each database query. It was a powerful abstraction, but unfortunately SQL and its implementations missed out on important features, and broke it in fundamental ways. In response to this problem, and the industry’s approach towards object-databases, Chris Date and Hugh Darwen wrote “The Third Manifesto” (TTM) to put forward their ideas on how future database systems should work. I urge you to read their books (even if you’re not interested in the subject) – the language is amazing: precise, concise, comprehensive and easy to read – other technical authors don’t come close.
The relational model treats data as sets of logical propositions and allows them to be queried, manipulated and constrained declaratively. It abstracts away from physical storage and access issues which is why it will still be used a hundred years from now (and why NoSQL discussions like these http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/EntityRelationship http://www.cmlenz.net/archives/2007/10/couchdb-joins are retrograde). If you’re writing loops to query your data, or having to navigate prescribed connection paths, then your abstractions are feeble and limited.
Erwin Smout gave a couple of talks about implementing transition constraints and dispensing with data definition language.
David Livingstone walked us through the RAQUEL architecture – a layered approach along the lines of the OSI network model.
Hugh Darwen discussed the features and implementation of IBM’s Business System 12, one of the first ever relational database systems which had some surprisingly dynamic features, including key inferencing, so that view definitions could keep tabs on their underlying constraints.
Chris Date took us through his latest thoughts on how to update relational views in a generic way. The aim is for database users to be able to treat views and base tables in the same way, for both reading and writing. Lots to think about here, and my to-do list for Dee has grown another section.
Adrian Hudnott discussed a couple of research projects around optimising multiple relational assignments and tracking the source of updates so that transition constraints could be more effective.
Renaud de Landtsheer gave an insight into the work he’s been doing implementing first-order-logic constraints within Oracle databases.
I sat next to Toon Koppelaars (whose name went down well with the Geordies) and then I realised I had his book (Applied Mathematics for Database Professionals) waiting to be read on my desk at work, thanks to the eclectic Isotoma library (and Wes).
It was a packed couple of days with plenty of food for thought. Thank you to David Livingstone and Safwat Mansi for organising and hosting such an enjoyable and interesting event.