Elementary Relationships Theory Application to Data Banks

• The research appears to be primary and experimental.
• No discussion of methodology or approach is evident.
• The study is designed in two separate parts. In the first part, the author discusses the flaws and drawbacks of the existing models for the databank system arrangement. Also, the author describes a new n-ary relations model. In the second section, he applies the relational model to data storage problems including consistency and redundancy.

• A central point is that relational theory surpasses the network model as applied to data storage system organization.
• The main flaw of the network model currently used in many data storage systems is that it tolerates a connection trap.
• The relational model allows better clarity in evaluating data systems from a logical standpoint.
• Users should operate with domain-ordered and time-varying relationships.
• Data representations should be limited to avoid continual reinterpretation of current structure descriptions.
• The relational model seems to fail to overcome the data consistency problem that will be aggravated by the introduction of new data types.

The author conducts a thorough analysis of the existing approach to data system construction and arrangement and identifies its weaknesses and drawbacks. The practical implication of this is that in the business sphere, the architecture of data banks may change under the influence of this new model. The key theoretical implication is that the new database model based on relational theory will receive further development.

Given sufficient analysis, adjusting, and testing, it may become a working solution for the identified problems involving consistency and redundancy. Given the problematic nature of the proposed model revealed during its application to data operations and relations, the model will receive further attention from scholars. Along these lines, Date (2014) produced a critical analysis of the theory in 2014 that underlines the relevance of the issue and its non-trivial nature.

First, the structure of the paper is ambiguous and bears little resemblance to academic work in the conventional sense with a rigid structure and other elements that make the comprehension smooth and seamless. Therefore, consideration of the content was undermined by a lack of clear transitions. Even though the material is divided into chapters and sub-chapters, any link between sections appears vague in places. Also, the subject matter of the article remains partially unclear, presumably due to a lack of general understanding of the topic and the absence of a clear flow.

The author seems to have divided the discussion into several distinct aspects, each of which he discusses separately. This factor does not enhance the quality of the reading experience. One explanation for this formatting choice maybe that Codd (1970) addresses this particular work primarily to his colleagues, aspiring to receive support in developing and analyzing his theory.

On the other hand, plenty of elements that constitute a prominent product of science are present. In particular, the level and depth of critical analysis that the author applies to the network model are admirable. The same depth is demonstrated in the presentation and application of the relational model. The author admits that his framework contains critical flaws, and in this light, he requests the assistance of the academic community. This is a marvelous example of openness to cooperation and a bias-free approach to innovational research. Moreover, Codd (1970) uses a plethora of examples and analogies to help the reader understand the essence of his arguments. Overall, the writing mechanics, appropriate demonstration of academic courtesy, and the explanation of key terms characterize the work as a high-quality academic paper.