Week 4 Readings

Articles

Coulson, F. (n.d.). Tutorial on Database Normalization. Phlonx. Retrieved from http://www.phlonx.com/resources/nf3/

             I found that Fred Coulson’s structuring of his tutorial helped me understand a little easier the database normalization. Specifically, he explains that he himself “find[s] it difficult to visualize these concepts using words alone, so [Coulson] shall rely as much as possible upon pictures and diagrams” (Coulson, Introduction, para. 1). This was a good method on his part; the examples were merely words before and would hold no meaning if the reader did not already know about the tools used. Images, however, elaborate on the tutorial and ensure that everyone has a similar basic understanding of the topic.

            In addition, after reading the article, I have started recognizing when others discuss the concepts mentioned. For example, Professor Langmead in LIS 2220 recently talked about the nature of records and invited discussion on what databases were in that context. When I heard such terminology being voiced, I immediately took out my notes from the website so that I could understand what was being discussed. When she noted the relational database, I knew its function in the relational database management system (RDBMS) (Coulson, First Normal Form, para. 11) and that it has both an obvious primary key – columns that identify each row – (ibid., First Normal Form, para. 12) and a concatenated primary key, or a primary key made up of more than two columns (ibid., First Normal Form, para. 12). I didn’t recognize the normalization process when Prof. Langmead first referenced it, but after looking at my notes I now understand how it determines the nature of databases, especially its three normal forms forbidding repeating elements and dependencies on concatenated keys and non-key attributes (Coulson, Introduction, para. 7). This situation illustrates how, in the field of library and information sciences, there are no distinct situations where certain concepts are only discussed once; these ideas will appear in every field. I just have to be aware so that I can use or participate in debates about them.

 

Database. (2013, September 15). Retrieved September 17, 2013, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database

             What caught my attention in the article was the terminology section. According to Wikipedia, the word “database” can mean (formerly) the data itself and its supporting data structures (Database, 2013, Terminology, para. 1), a causal reference to the database management system overall and the data which it manipulates (ibid., para. 2), or – “outside the world of professional information technology” – any collection of data, such as a spreadsheet or card index (ibid., para. 3). Such meanings for the term provided are interesting. Data, as well as a sense of an overarching system encompassing that data, connects all of the definitions. The differences lie not only in the details – what it exactly involves – but also in the implications of the power of data. The first definition situates data as the main force in the database, supported by the structures, while the last two definitions portray data as something used and controlled within the configuration. I wonder if this might have something to do with whoever uses each meaning. The last two are said to be casual interpretations, implying that those who use that form of “database” view data as something they could use and manipulate. The first, however, has no defined user except that it “formerly” meant that – perhaps implying that when “database” was first used, people were afraid of or had greater respect for how data can affect others.

            Another topic of interest was the number of databases listed. I never realized so many types existed – how there are parallel databases for improving performance through parallelization, probabilistic databases to employ fuzzy logic, cloud databases relying on cloud technology, and others like them, all to perform different jobs and fulfill a wide variety of needs (Database, 2013, Database type examples, para. 1). And these are just examples. If they are the current models now, who is to say that more cannot be made? That others will create databases for uses we have not thought of yet? Or someone may develop current databases to encompass new structures or complete their uses at greater levels? The possibilities are endless.

 

Entity-relationship model. (2013, September 18). Retrieved September 18, 2013, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity-relationship_model

             As a former English double-major, the linguistics nature of the entity-relationship model fascinates me. That entities can be understood as nouns (Entity-relationship, 2013, The building blocks, para. 3) and relationships – “captur[ing] how entities are related to one another” – can be reduced to verbs (ibid., para. 4) is interesting. I do not know if I fully understand the purpose, but it seems like such a method helps categorize information within a database – in which case, using language structures as the organizing element seems to reveal more about human nature. People depend a lot on language, more than I originally thought before reading the article.

            However, even though we depend so much on communication, it does not seem too stable. Under the limitations section, one limit of the entity-relationship model was that it presumes that information content can easily be represented in a relational database but it itself only describes the relational structure for the information (Entity-relationship, 2013, Limitations, point 1). In terms of linguistics, such a restriction suggests that a different level of language is used in the model. We know language as a fertile, complex force that can have just a couple of words represent both simple and complex ideas. Inside the database, though, it is reduced to its structure rather than meaning, depending on fewer words than needed to describe ideas. This sounds a little ironic, since information is communication in a sense. This would mean that, when working with the models, I would need to be careful on how I manipulate and categorize the content.