Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
11-29-2006, 05:23 PM | #1 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Historiography of antiquity and hierarchical vs relational database technology
This may appear to be slightly divergent from the issues
largely discussed in this forum, but please bear with me for a moment while I attempt to specifically examine an aspect and utility of modern database technology, and to make a small point. The difference between what is termed "hierarchical" and "relational" technology may not seem to be in any way related to the historiography of antiquity and late antiquity as considered by the scholars of BC&H. But IMO it is ... With respect to modern database technology, the term hierarchical essentially means that all references are taken from one (possibly more, but finite and fixed) frame of reference. This is the old way of looking at things, because under such a paradigm, it is virtually impossible to be able to examine the contents of your database from the persective of anything contained within your database, outside the primary indexes provided by the hierarchy. On the other hand, a relational (technology) database has the necessary ability (given the knowledge) to be able to deliver examination of the contents of that database by virtually any of the elements of the database (not just the "keys", as with the above). Having said all of this, I point out that all the standard BC&H databases are of the former type (ie: hierarchical) even though (such as PK's trinity of databases) may run on relational technology. This is so because the database is specifically for "things related to christianity", and all references within these databases, are securely BOLTED to the one main hierarchical structure of the (essentially) Eusebian chronology, as presented in HE. Nothing else is generally presented. No Roman emperors, no pagan philosophers (either neopythagorean, neoplotinist, stoic, etc), no Roman emperors (unless they purportedly made reference to the "tribe of christians"), no administrators, governors, prefects (unless they etc etc), no non-christian writers, authors of works, no non christian poets, mathematicians, proto-scientists, etc, etc, etc. You can see that the standard (hierarchical) christian presentation of knowledge is obviously not relational. How then can anyone realistically expect to be able to form a relational picture of the development of the history of christianity without this "other" side? Therefore (particularly Peter Kirby, but others here doing the same or contemplating the same sort of thing), consider this message very long and with sufficient objectivity to understand just what it is I am attempting to communicate. At the moment, the majority of people, as a result of our conditioned historical belief system have been brought up to understand and view the world (and its history) through a grossly exaggerated and hierarchical historiographical framework which is essentially "felt" to be "christian" and "right" and "authoritative" and "true". We are now operating under a very hierarchical historiography. It is essentially Eusebian, at its technical specifications. This is not the optimum, by any stretch of the imagination. In order to be "true" and "objective" and "engender tools and views to perceive what is "right" (all these words by the way are to be applied and relate to HISTORY, and its scholarly study, not anything else !!!!!!), we will obviously need to implement a far more relational viewpoint on antiquity. How to construct and implement such an animal? Simple, start pumping into the "christian-related" databases details and citations (to literature first, then other things) which are not related to christianity (see list below), and gather these texts at the same time together. * (pagan) Roman emperors * (pagan) neopythagorean philosophers * (pagan) neoplotinist philosophers * (pagan) stoic philosophers * (pagan) historians * administrators, governors, prefects of the empire * non-christian writers and authors of works * non-christian poets, mathematicians & proto-scientists * etc * etc * archeological citations * coins * statues * art * inscriptions * carbon dating citations * etc Only in this way (IMO) will we eventually begin to understand that the history of antiquity, and late antiquity, as currently studied by the scholars of BC&H, is not the thing we think it to be. Thank you for your attention. As you were, Pete Brown Eusebian Chronology presented in a Relational Context |
11-29-2006, 05:52 PM | #2 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
I work in IT, and I work with databases, and I have no idea what you mean. Am I right to say that a summary of your post would read "we need to think outside the box"?
|
11-29-2006, 06:27 PM | #3 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
|
Expanding the database to include the non-Christian, the non-Jewish, or the non-Latin would not make the database a different structure. It would just make it a bigger database.
I plan to make the database and the software to access it sufficiently general to power without modification the "Early Christian Writings," "Early Jewish Writings," "Early Latin Writings," and "Early Greek Writings" websites, which are niche by nature and design. I also have a Project X in the planning stages that will not be niche in its content like the above four, but first I have to refine what I've already started. I am also obligated to complete work on Errancy Web before I proceed to work on Project X. Those who have an interest in Project X may PM me about it, with a message expressing a simple NDA ("I won't tell a soul about Project X."). regards, Peter Kirby |
11-29-2006, 06:39 PM | #4 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Quote:
by which (historical) things which are now outside the square can be brought inside the square with everything else. Once a sufficient mass of non-christian historical things are thus brought into a relational aspect with things belonging to the christian (or rather "ecclesiastical") history, there will become increasingly apparent at least two things: (1) the relation of the ecclesiastic history to the history. (2) the relation of the history to the ecclesiastical history. At the moment, we are boxed in by conventions which are hierarchical. This aspect of databases (ie: hierarchical vs relational) was essentially navigated during the early 80's and from the 90's the RDBMS (relational systems) is the norm. If you got into IT after the 80's, you may not have appreciated the evolution. Here is a very brief (and quite tangential) History of the RDBMS. Hope this explains what I wanted to communicate. Best wishes, Pete |
|
11-29-2006, 06:48 PM | #5 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Quote:
Interesting projects PK. You can see that in the end one database will house the christian, the jewish, the greek, the latin, etc. It will contain all the authors of antiquity and enable their categorisation, etc. (even the Stoics, etc). You are heading the right direction ... keep going. And best wishes, Pete |
|
12-03-2006, 10:54 AM | #6 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
The technical term here is "database schema".
What data elements are contained within the database, how they are to be defined, and how they are to be related to one another. If you work with databases then the "schema" of the database is the thing being discussed here. FYI. |
12-04-2006, 08:45 AM | #7 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bordeaux France
Posts: 2,796
|
Hierarchical versus relational is no more of a problem. All databases are now relational, if you use a standard software.
The problem is the definition of the Tables which will contain all your data, and simultaneously, the definition of the Questions which can be asked. You have already built a table of Persons, And another Table : Qualifications of these Persons, religion, function : * (pagan) Roman emperors * (pagan) neopythagorean philosophers * (pagan) neoplotinist philosophers * (pagan) stoic philosophers * (pagan) historians * administrators, governors, prefects of the empire * non-christian writers and authors of works * non-christian poets, mathematicians & proto-scientists * etc... In your list, you assign one date (year) to a person. Is it sufficient ? What is its exact meaning ? Birth date ? Death date ? Beginning of reign (emperors) ? You are going to find problems with dates, because in ancient history, dates are usually very imprecise. This table of Persons does not contain the description of events concerning a Person. Then, you shall create another Table for : * archeological citations * coins * statues * art * inscriptions * carbon dating citations * etc All these data will be connected to at least one Person of the Table of Persons. Possibly, you will need a Table of Towns, a Table of Countries, a Table of Regions ? |
12-04-2006, 09:09 AM | #8 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
|
I did my graduate work on database design. My final paper was on non-hierarchic classification. I ultimately came to the conclusion that the optimization of the abstract structure was secondary to the question of content. It's like someone (John Dvorak?) said about parallel computing: processing speed and efficiency are great, but what is it that is being processed? So I began my search for the "primum datum", the one bit of information which, in considering the entire history of mankind, stands as the most far-reaching. There is no doubt that the answer is Christ. This is true on a strictly empirical basis. After all, who is the most cited person in history? So my point is that it is precisely relational data structures that reveal this. Just as all roads lead to Rome, so do all data streams lead to Christ.
|
12-04-2006, 03:06 PM | #9 | ||||||||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Thanks for your contribution Huon ...
Quote:
Quote:
or simply "AUTHORS" for the following reason: We obtain our data for non-authors only by means of persons who are in fact authors, either of texts, coins, inscriptions, etc (see RecordType below). Those who wish to have an entry for Jesus Christ in this database may do so because we are assured by Eusebius that not only wrote a letter in response to King Agbar (in Syriac), but that Eusebius found this letter in the archives while he was preparing his new "Ecclesiastical History" and chronology of the bishops of Rome, and personally translated it to the Greek. Thus JC is an author of antiquity, and rightfully deserves his own entry on this basis. Quote:
will of course have sub-categories. The aim is to sort out the different strands in antiquity which were purported to have coexisted in the three centuries (1,2,3) of the pre- Nicene Epoch. This is a category table only, expandable, fluid as required. Quote:
real one, with some authors being variously placed over 2 or 3 centuries and with texts, the same. My advise would be to have a separate field (numeric years) representative of the ERROR-BAR of years involved in the two dates cited for the birth and death of the author (Record Type = "A" for author) A separate date of composition (with a separate ERROR-BAR) is separately allocated to the text (Record Type = "T" for text). Quote:
In the initial database load, we totally ignore all events but those of the authors, texts, coins, and all other historical record types defined below. My reason for this is that the EVENTS are to be described in terms of the detailed citations available to this first level of data, and need not be separately recorded. The events in theory should be reconstructable from the texts (and other historical record types) which are registered to the database. Stay with the foundational sources until you are forced to depart therefrom. Here are the foundational sources of history, as I perceive them to be at this stage: Quote:
of humanity. This too is simply a relatively small reference table, in which in addition to the above, the following two: * author * text Every record in the database relates to either one archeological citation, coin, statue, art work, inscription, carbon dating citation, grafitti, author or text. The sum total of all rows in this database represents all we have managed to have ascertained about our common antiquity. Quote:
either known or not known to us, and this correlation between the record and its author is of fundamental importance to the integrity of the endpoint of the system. It could be called "AUTHORS-WORKS" representing art, text, coins, etc Quote:
of the names of geographical names and boundaries over the time period and probably inclusive of their modern day geographical counterparts, if appropriate. Finally, the system needs to specifically have the means by which an interpolated text is (objectively) indentified and further referenced. My advice at this stage is to simply have some column attached to each record type "HAS BEEN INTERPOLATED?" with a binary value, to record the possibility of investigating the consequences. A further TEXT subtype would be used to separately record the slab of text out of the original text which, starting with the most probable interpolation issues (such as the TF) working down to the least cited interpolation issue (eg: M.Antoninus' reference to christians in his Meditations). Being a separate record, it will therefore also exist in the AUTHORS-WORKS correlation table, indentifying one or more possible interpolator (author). To conclude, the above schema because of its simplicity is conducive to a rapid load of extensive data by the harvesting of a series of already extant public domain data sources. Report generation from the resultant database is entirely trivial SQL. It will be the categorisations that promote the wealth of a very rich diversity. The issues relevant to BC&H for the period 0-300 have ever only been examined looking at a subset of the above database. The BC&H traditional view has exclusively concentrated on the texts and authors which are hierarchically related to the category of christian authors and texts. We need to see the whole picture. Pete Brown |
||||||||
12-04-2006, 03:23 PM | #10 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Quote:
historiographical perspective if I have ever seen one, and thus should serve to remind natural historians, and students of history, what is the antithesis of the formulation of a relational historiographical perspective. The relational perspective allows for the possibility that other categories of authors have something to tell us about the world and about our common heritage of antiquity. It allows for * Marcus Aurelius Antoninus & Julian (pagan) Roman emperors * Apollonius of Tyana, (pagan) neopythagorean philosophers * Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus (pagan) neoplotinist philosophers * [See 'Meditations'] (pagan) stoic philosophers * Ammianus Marcellinus, Aurelius Victor, (pagan) historians * administrators, governors, prefects of the empire * non-christian writers and authors of works * non-christian poets, mathematicians & proto-scientists The relational persective allows us to explore the possibility that the pre-Nicene epoch was a totally different place than what we have traditionally been taught and conditioned to believe, especially in regard to the appearance of the fabrication of the galilaeans during that period. Pete Brown |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|