Re: computational model of transactions

paul c wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > ...
> > It seems to me that much or maybe all of the difficulty with multiple
> > concurrent transactions operating on the same data would be
> > eliminated if it wasn't possible for a transaction to read back
> > the results of its own writes.
> > ...
>
> I'll offer another reaction to this in the hope of showing that that
> multiple concurrent transactions is a smaller part of a bigger question,
> consistency (in what I think is Bob B's sense of correctness), ie.,
> talking about concurrent difficulties is a limited, though not
> impractical, way to talk about accuracy.
Yep. Much bigger than you think. Lots of work remains to be done. We are at the limit of RM work done into defining interaction between data and people(information interpretability). While RM bridged the gap by formalisation between individual information usage and data stored, it did not define collective mechanisms for preserving integrity and creating *collective* sense of data. In a word, RM allowed to define best approximation for individually interpretable information on computerized machine but it did not define anything close to collectively interpretable information or some kind of more dynamic formalization taking in account position of the relational system on a network and the logical aspects of interaction between groups of people and the system . The real issue with concurrency is that it may make some RM concepts ambiguous. I am not confident a satifsfactory solution won't be brought anytime soon. A relational system would require to be built first.

Trying to implement decent concurrency on a truly relational system without some abstract model involving network model abstract thinking seems hazardous.  

[Snipped]
> p
Received on Tue Aug 01 2006 - 23:56:04 CEST