This blog tends to focus on research and often comments on how technological developments will alter the management of information and the computation of data. Occasionally, however, we also discuss issues within the undergraduate and postgraduate degrees (and modules) our team happens to deliver. It is therefore worthwhile announcing to all those who read the blog that our team has launched a new undergraduate degree programme for 2011: BSc Business Communications.
In BSc Business Communications at LJMU (UCAS Code: N102) students will study the strategic importance of communication, information and technology, and the role these play in the modern business organisation. Further information on the new programme can be found at our standalone BSc Business Communications website, the official LJMU BSc Business Communications website, or our Facebook group (BSc Business Communications at LJMU). BSc Business Communications is recruiting now for 2011/2012.
The Information Strategy Group at Liverpool Business School, Liverpool John Moores University, offers courses and undertakes research in areas pertaining to information management, business information systems, communications and public relations, and library and information science.
Showing posts with label Liverpool John Moores University. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liverpool John Moores University. Show all posts
Monday, 15 November 2010
Friday, 28 November 2008
Catching up with the old future of databases
We have been discussing in the group what we should be teaching on our Business Information Systems undergraduate course. Which is having a bit of a revamp. One area of discussion is about the areas of 'databases' which we teach mostly in the students second year and 'object oriented analysis and design' (but mostly analysis) which we teach in their final year.
When I used to teach database sections 10 years ago to business students we used to teach a history of:-

Apparently believers and developers of Object Oriented Databases are just bemused by why everybody hasn't followed them into the promised land, particularly as much time is spent on 'Object Relational Mapping' technologies.
All round software development and architecture thinker and general purpose bearded Guru Martin Fowler, believes that the issue isn't to do with the general capabilities of the Object Oriented Databases but rather the fact that much integration in corporations occurs in the data layer not the business layer hence systems are dependent on standardised SQL approaches to integration. He suggests in his blog post on the subject that this shared database integration requirement has been holding back the march to the future of Object Oriented Databases. Creating extra inertia. Indeed, a confession, in my day job despite being Object Oriented N-Tier architecture developers by trade and conviction, when it came to tying our own timesheet system to our task management system we used database level triggers. It's a bit like the fact that there are better ways to do typing that using qwerty but we've all learnt to live with qwerty.
However with the movement towards using Web Services and SOA type architectures in effect making XML the linguq franca rather than SQL, Martin Fowler suggests that the field might start to loosen up. Although I wonder whether reporting is another issue. We produce some reports (in Crystal Reports and the equivalent) straight from our business objects, but other management reports really need to be produced straight off the (SQL) database. On occasions this is seperate from the main thrust of the application using a different technology stack.
Really the technology of the day in software development is Object Relational Mapping tools, ORMS. These try and hold the Object Oriented businesss layer to the Data Entity Oriented database layer. Such connections are relatively straightfoward in an unsophisticated design. My final year students currently angsting over a UML assignment will find that their Class Diagram is much the same as their Entity Relationship Diagram. But as you move deeper into doing things the Object way the two diverge. My Village colleague Ian Bufton and I have been discussing this in terms of lining up the two layers using either tools or code generation you can see some of his initial ponderings on his blog.
Luckily these types of contemplation are outside the scope of the things that our Information Systems students at the Business School, no doubt they have to worry about how to teach it at the Computer Science department.
When I used to teach database sections 10 years ago to business students we used to teach a history of:-
- file access
- hierarchical databases
- network databases
- relational databases
- object oriented databases.

Apparently believers and developers of Object Oriented Databases are just bemused by why everybody hasn't followed them into the promised land, particularly as much time is spent on 'Object Relational Mapping' technologies.
All round software development and architecture thinker and general purpose bearded Guru Martin Fowler, believes that the issue isn't to do with the general capabilities of the Object Oriented Databases but rather the fact that much integration in corporations occurs in the data layer not the business layer hence systems are dependent on standardised SQL approaches to integration. He suggests in his blog post on the subject that this shared database integration requirement has been holding back the march to the future of Object Oriented Databases. Creating extra inertia. Indeed, a confession, in my day job despite being Object Oriented N-Tier architecture developers by trade and conviction, when it came to tying our own timesheet system to our task management system we used database level triggers. It's a bit like the fact that there are better ways to do typing that using qwerty but we've all learnt to live with qwerty.
However with the movement towards using Web Services and SOA type architectures in effect making XML the linguq franca rather than SQL, Martin Fowler suggests that the field might start to loosen up. Although I wonder whether reporting is another issue. We produce some reports (in Crystal Reports and the equivalent) straight from our business objects, but other management reports really need to be produced straight off the (SQL) database. On occasions this is seperate from the main thrust of the application using a different technology stack.
Really the technology of the day in software development is Object Relational Mapping tools, ORMS. These try and hold the Object Oriented businesss layer to the Data Entity Oriented database layer. Such connections are relatively straightfoward in an unsophisticated design. My final year students currently angsting over a UML assignment will find that their Class Diagram is much the same as their Entity Relationship Diagram. But as you move deeper into doing things the Object way the two diverge. My Village colleague Ian Bufton and I have been discussing this in terms of lining up the two layers using either tools or code generation you can see some of his initial ponderings on his blog.
Luckily these types of contemplation are outside the scope of the things that our Information Systems students at the Business School, no doubt they have to worry about how to teach it at the Computer Science department.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)