This SSRC-sponsored workshop brought together a number of experts from the fields of computer science and social science who (not surprisingly perhaps) were mutually rather baffling. The general tone of the encounter was set by Dr Peter Stocker (East Anglia) for the computer scientists and Stephen Clark (SSRC Survey Archive) for the social scientists respectively. Clark evaluated software which existed (the S.I.R. front-end to SPSS) and did nearly everything anyone might want nearly all of the time, while Stocker described software which had existed but failed to please and software that didn't exist yet but would satisfy just about everyone. Stocker also explained how good computers were not only as a source of entertainment but also as a source of income . The reaction to this topical jest (much of the conversation in the bar hinged on comparisons of letters from the UGC) having subsided, he proceeded to dole out some rather antique platitudes on the subject of database systems, relational models, size and scope thereof etc before finally touching on his latest fund-raising exercise, a distributed database system. This currently takes the form of lengthy arguments about some way of interfacing various relational query process rs to a common target and bears a strong resemblance to ICL's Data Dictionary philosophy. John Welford (ERCC) was supposed to be speaking about an application of IDMS to a complex record-linkage (i.e. parish record) problem, but was rapidly side-tracked into a rather empty discussion of the usability of otherwise of Cobol, which managed to raise the hackles of both camps in his audience, the computer scientists by its matter and the social ones by its manner. The undisputed star of the workshop was chubby Dr Tim King from Cambridge whose infamously large and complex database of parish registers we hope to acquire for the Archive before the whole project gets the chop this August. His database is accessed by means of his own home-made relational system CODD and its query language CHIPS (hem hem); this software is written entirely in BCPL and King and Jardine were evidently a touch miffed that the SSRC had refused ipso facto to support the package; several social scientists were also rather disappointed at this, since his was the only system described at the workshop which could be said to generate much enthusiasm. (This enthusiasm was however later dispelled by a remarkably inept presentation by another user of CODD, Ryan Kemp from UCL, whose talk was barely visible, scarcely literate and utterly devoid of intellectual content). A more competent speaker, Ron Cuff from Essex, now c/o IBM, speculated about future directions in query languages, spouting out acronyms like a burst water main, but also several useful references Expert systems, natural language query processors, all are very nearly with us (the best of the latter was called ROBOT in the states but is now known as OLE (On Line English- presumably to avoid confusion with Liverpool's antiquated DBMS rather than to appeal to the Spanish market). The narrowing of the gap between A.I, systems and query processors continues to lead to flourishing hybrids (and mutual mystifications). What the social scientists made of all this I cannot imagine; probably rather more however than they did of the next speaker, Dr Peter Gray from Aberdeen, whose ASTRID system is an automatic program generator for accessing a Codasyl database by means of the relational algebra. The same system was being developed to interface Zloof's Query-by-example, which Gray felt typified the query processor of the future. The social .scientists finally managed to get in a word when Dr N Gilbert (Surrey) described in heart-rending detail the extremes to which they had to go in order to translate the inescapably hierarchically structured datasets derived from the General HouseholdSurvey into flat SPSS-processable files. This (to my mind utterly futile) task was being carried out in collaboration with the Survey Archive at Essex; inevitably some linkages are lost and others 'as many as possible' are then painfully reinstated by hand. In later conversation with Dr Gilbert and the Archive's representatives I argued the case for a database solution to this problem, which may have some effect.
The Welsh team, in the person of one Fiddian, gave a paper on their current fund-raising exercise which has the ambitious name of SENSE; quite what else it has remains to be seen. It is apparently something like CONSISTENT on Multics, or Software Tools on UNIX, or -dare I say it- VME/B. Quite why the government should be funding the development of a machine independent operating system is rather beyond me, but then I may have missed something crucial in Mr Fiddian's extraordinarily soporific talk. The third day of the conference began with Mr Kemp on whom I have already trampled, and continued with Dr Ron Stamper (LSE) who seemed by comparison to come from a different planet. He described the LEGOL project, an ambitious scheme somewhere between A.I. and data modelling. Its aim is to provide a knowledge-base representing (currently) the DHSS bureaucracy, in terms of the law the Department is supposed to embody rather than the clerical procedures (which would form the basis of a conventional computerisation). This was fascinating, and LEGOL does actually work – there is a POP2 interpreter for it at Edinburgh. However I cannot imagine that the social scientists received much from this talk apart from the pleasing sensation of having their brains gently squeezed through a fine sieve. Finally however, Stephen Tagg (Strathclyde) came trailing clouds of glory to assert the claims of SPSSS as a data management system (sic). This he actually managed to do remarkably well, with no dodging of unpleasant truths, no vague platitudes and a considerable display of knowing How To Get Things Done in the constraints of the real world.
Finally despite the flippant tone of this report, I should say how very useful it was to be able to meet the people behind the projects of which vague rumour has been reaching me for some time (e.g. King & Jardine, Stamper, Tannenbaum) and actually discuss matters of mutual interest and concern.