|Codd, E. F. (1970). A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Communications of the ACM, 13(6), 377-387.|
|Design / Methodology / Approach (How are the objectives achieved? Include the main methods used for the research and the approach to the topic.): |
|Main Points / Findings / Conclusions (What are the main points? What was found in the course of the work, and what are the major conclusions? This will refer to analysis, discussion, or results.): |
|Implications to Practice and Knowledge (What outcomes and implications for practice and knowledge as well as applications and consequences are identified?): |
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.
|Critique (Which parts of the paper you like, and which parts of the paper you don’t like? Why?): |
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.
Codd, E. F. (1970). A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Communications of the ACM, 13(6), 377-387.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
Date. C.J. (2014). Codd’s first relational papers: A critical analysis. Web.