An Examination of Koichi Tohei’s Ki Sayings

Tags

, , ,

Quite early into my study of Aikido I came across the scanned pages of Ki Sayings, which was published by Koichi Tohei in 1973. At the time I pretty much dismissed it as little more than a pseudo-religious text, such was the mystical language Tohei included. As it turns out, an explanation of this little book provides a fairly useful introduction to the concepts we discuss in Aikido, and why Tohei’s ideas were incorporated into what was a much harder style of Aikido.
According to Henry Ellis, in one of his many rants on the state of modern Aikido, Ki was never mentioned or discussed among junior grades at Abe Sensei’s dojo, and for understandable reasons. Aiki will always be something of a hidden secret, not because anyone choses to keep it a secret nowadays, but because an adequate understanding of it only comes gradually with years of practice. I don’t think the word ‘Ki‘ has a clear definition in English. A general description would be the phenomenon that manifests when everything is connected and in co-ordination with one’s centre of gravity. Ai-ki-jutsu, or Ai-ki-do, is the martial art based on this principle.

At the front of our dojo are displayed Koichi Tohei’s Four Major Principles to Unify Mind and Body:

  • 1. Keep one-point.
  • 2. Relax completely.
  • 3. Keep weight underside.
  • 4. Extend Ki.

Keeping ‘one point’ is to maintain awareness of your centre of gravity, and how your body is behaving in relation to it. To relax completely is to remove all tension within the body, so techniques aren’t about fighting strength with strength, but instead changing the direction of the opponent’s effort. To keep ‘weight underside’ is tricky to put into words, but very generally it means to keep your shoulders down and you body relaxed – it is much harder to fight against dead weight. Extending Ki is about practising techniques and throws with confidence, to project force. To this we’ve added a fifth principle: ‘Respect your partner’s Ki’. People do occasionally get injured when they over-estimate themselves or under-estimate their training partner.

So, all this background is important when reading Ki Sayings, because again Tohei used mystical descriptions that distracts from what needs to be learned. Tohei must have come to this realisation by the time he authored ‘Ki in Daily Life‘ (a pricey but strongly recommended book). Having progressed so far in Aikido, I know that Aiki can (and probably should) be taught without any reference to religion or spirituality. This, I think was one of the main things behind the disagreements that ended with Tohei’s departure from the Aikikai.

Unification of Mind and Body
Do not think that the power you have is only the power you ordinarily use and moan that you have little strength. The power you ordinarily use is like the small, visible segment of an iceberg.
This is at the heart of the Aikido we practice. Have you noticed how much easier it is to carry weight when it’s distributed around your body? Likewise, we can use more than 10% of our body when moving and manipulating objects. The hidden strength is manifested when the body works in co-ordination, and there are very useful self-defence applications of this, even beyond accepted Aikido techniques.

The One Point in the Lower Abdomen
When Tohei stated the ‘one point’ is the centre of the Universe, I think he meant that, from the Aikido practitioner’s perspective, the ‘one point’ is the centre of everything s/he interacts with. It is to make your centre of gravity the ‘unmoved mover’ within the dojo, so you’re the one directing the movements of opponents.

Living Calmness
Main point is to be relaxed, and not to react by transferring your body’s weight from your centre of gravity to a weaker position, not to react by focussing all your efforts through one part of the body.

The Subconscious
Doubt and the subconscious are the biggest obstacles to overcome in Aikido. Most of us started practising Aikido with the preconceptions that fights are won (or survived) using little more than strength, that resistance must be overcome by physical effort, that a smaller man cannot throw someone considerably bigger and more powerful, that relaxation is the worst response to imminent danger. Maybe you’re extremely skeptical that a man like Morihei Ueshiba once forcefully threw a Judo master to the ground with his little finger. The core of Aikido is counter-intuitive.

Ki Development Exercises
Often our sessions begin with 20 minutes’ Ki development exercises, though this probably isn’t really necessary since it’s developed alongside our competence with techniques and katas.
These exercises initially test the ability to relax completely, and progresses to a test of our ability to maintain that relaxation against physical resistance. For senior grades, the ability to move always with co-ordination is tested.

Ki Breathing Methods
Also essential to develop is the habit of breathing correctly, because people have a tendency to hold their breath as they perform a technique. This isn’t sustainable when continuously dealing with one opponent (or attacker) after another for several minutes – and you’d more than likely black out during a higher level grading.
Breathe deeply through your nose, as much as you can, and exhale slowly through the mouth. Breathe in as you receive the opponent’s entry and exhale as you throw the opponent.

I’ll end this post with two closing pages from the book.

Advertisements

Aikido and Miyamoto Musashi’s Book of Five Rings

Tags

, , , ,

The Book of Five Rings continues to inspire martial artists today, and is occasionally mentioned within the walls of our own dojo during one of Sensei’s digressions on weapons techniques. It was authored in 1645 by one of the most famous (maybe even the most famous) swordsmen in Japanese history, Miyamoto Musashi, then aged 60, as a reflection of what he learned throughout his lifetime. Musashi had fought and won about 60 duels, often against those who regarded themselves as highly skilled swordsmen, though it wasn’t until he was about age 50 that he discovered what he called the ‘Way of Strategy’.
I have been reading Victor Harris’ translation of this work, which introduces the main body of work with some background about Japanese society during the lifetime of Musashi.

Did Musashi contribute to the martial art that eventually became Aikido? While the pedigree of Daito-ryu Aiki-jutsu might be uncertain, it appeared in the public domain as a developed fighting system that appears to be in agreement with what he taught. In multiple places he appears to make oblique references to Aiki without actually revealing the secret. For example, he mentioned that by mastering the Way of Strategy ‘you can suddenly make your body like a rock, and ten thousand things cannot touch you‘, and that this was passed on through oral tradition – I cannot authoritively say whether this is widely taught outside my own style of Aikido, but the oldest among us were very close to Ueshiba in terms of pedigree.
Our sword techniques came to us, it seems, through Morihei Ueshiba’s study of the Kashima Shinto Ryu instead of from Takeda Sokaku (that is according to a study of Admiral Isamu Takeshita’s journal), and we handle the katana/bokken exactly as Musashi described, gripping only with the two fingers and never with the index finger (there are at least two technical reasons for this). Also, he refers to something called ‘Attitude-No Attitude’, that techniques are simply a means to learn something more fundamental, such as Aiki, that cannot easily be passed on through words.
In any case, I think there’s a lot in the Book of Five Rings of importance if we’re practising any martial art. It challenges us to question the utility of what we’re taught.

What is the Way of Strategy that Musashi referred to? Advocating simplicity and a utilitarian approach, his general point was: ‘The true Way of sword fencing is is the craft of defeating the enemy in a fight, and nothing other than this‘.
Strategically dealing with the adversary, his psychology and the circumstances is a surer way to success than merely fighting against his weapon, and the Way of Strategy suggests practical ways this could be done. In the Wind Book, he compares his Way with the schools that claim secret and obscure teachings, that place too much importance on traditions, and states: ‘the way to understanding is through experience, I do not speak of interior or gate‘.

The Ground Book
Defining ‘strategy’ and the ‘Way of Strategy’, Musashi compared it with the way tradespeople, such as carpenters, work to some design or plan. Followers of the Way of Strategy should be methodical when fighting adversaries, and make use of the conditions, circumstances and the environment.
Also important is timing, knowing the right moment to attack, and this comes only with much practice with a range of opponents. Determine the rhythm of the adversary and use it to your advantage.
Lastly there is perception, in terms of being able to see a wider and detailed picture, both in terms of studying martial arts and in terms of not paying attention solely to the opponent’s weapon in a fight.

The Water Book
This section contains something of a syllabus for sword fighting, and starts with at least two prerequisites. The ‘Stance in Strategy’, is a core principle of Aikido – stand upright, with shoulders lowered and weight underside. Musashi recommends practising this every day, making it the way you normally carry yourself. Of course, we also recommend making relaxation and co-ordination a habit outside our dojo.
As for gaze, I take Musashi’s words to mean developing peripheral vision and the ability to judge the body language and intention of the adversary instead of just the movement of the weapon. Strategy and timing isn’t possible without this, especially the strategy of interrupting an attack just as the opponent is about to move.

Though mastery of the katana is fundamental to the Way of Strategy, one shouldn’t be overly fixated on any particular weapon. Later on he warns that the ‘blade path is large, so the long sword is an encumberance‘ and a shorter sword might be more appropriate to a situation.
Musashi argued for the use of two swords in fighting – the katana and wakisashi in each hand, and against holding either with both hands unless it was necessary.

As with martial arts in general, there are a finite number of ways someone could attack, and consequently the number of entries is sufficiently finite to form the basis for any martial arts syllabus. The ‘Five Attitudes’ Musashi wrote about are counters to the five possible ways an adversary might attack using the sword – this is roughly the number of sword/bokken katas I practiced during my short time at an Iwama dojo, incidentally. When countering, one should use the whole body to defend, and immediately following up with something else.
Eventually, when the syllabus is mastered, there’s the realisation that there are no techniques or ‘attitudes’. Techniques are not Aikido, but rather the method for learning it. As Ueshiba himself one said: ‘There are no techniques. What you express each time is a technique.

Then there is the principle of ‘Crossing at a Ford’, which means crossing the metaphorical ‘ford’ where the path and conditions are easiest. For fighting, this means knowing the adversary’s strengths and weaknesses, and adjusting our techniques to them, so that we’re fighting along the path of least resistance. An example of this would be applying a technique into practice precisely when the opponent is off-balance, or redirecting the opponent’s attacks through the path of least resistance, or ‘taking the opponent’s mind’ before striking.

The Fire Book
Where the Water Book covers personal techniques and disposition, the Fire Book deals with the actual strategy, the ways of gaining advantages and exploiting weaknesses. Often strategy is determined by maintaining distance. This is understandable, as you want to keep your distance to avoid getting hit, while maybe looking for an opportunity to strike the opponent the moment he’s within range.
Instead, Musashi suggests basically rushing the opponent to prevent his gaining the opportunity to fight strategically, while chasing him into positions in which it’s awkward to fight. For example, it’s possible to affect the opponent’s visibility by standing with your back to the sun, or by chasing the opponent into places where his view and movements are obstructed, or by moving the opponent onto ground that makes it harder to move quickly.
It is also possible to manipulate a person’s psychology, perhaps by forcing a change in his timings, making him agitated, making him over-confident or impatient.

The Wind Book
In this section we find technical criticsms of what other martial art schools were teaching. In particular the focus on things he felt were unnecessary.

The Book of the Void
Wisdom is knowing that one knows nothing – the more learned we are, the more we’re aware of how little we know. This seems to be the main lesson in the Book of the Void. What don’t we know as we’re progressing in a martial art? What conceivable situations are we not training for? What can we adopt from the other martial arts?
For this reason Musashi recommended studying a wide range of martial arts and sword schools, learning what’s worth learning, while remaining true to the Way of Strategy.

The Art of War (Sun Tzu)

Tags

,

I came across this while browsing through the book stores in Newport: It’s the Arcturus 2017 edition of Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. Many full-colour illustrations adorn the glossy pages inside the hardback red silk cover.
The book was authored around 2,500 years ago, and it’s likely Sun Tzu recorded his observations throughout his military career and organised them into thirteen sections at a later point. It has been studied by world leaders throughout the 20th century, we’re told in the introduction. Like Miyamoto Musashi’s Book of Five Rings that came 2,000 years later, which deals more with actual combat and tactics, the Art of War is still used by modern-day strategists in warfare and business. I’ve seen and heard many a Sun Tzu quotation among the little quips of wisdom from SNCOs in the British Army.

Widely quoted and consulted as it is, I don’t think Sun Tzu actually offers much here that should be mistaken for a philosophy or deep insight into human nature that’s very usable to most of us. The closing chapter of this particular book addresses its applicability to business, politics and sport, but it doesn’t quite manage to make the parallels between those things and armed conflict.

You’ve probably heard it said that ‘success = preparation + opportunity’. I think main content of the Art of War can be summed up by a simple paragraph: Success is certain with the right amount of research, planning, preparation and execution. The plan should be developed based on what’s known of the environment, the disposition of allies and adversaries, the resources available, predictions about the adversary’s behaviour, and many other factors. By secrecy and deception, one could also prevent the adversary making calculated decisions.

But business managers are not military officers or warriors, and human relations in the civilian world, even between rivals, aren’t battlefields. Neither is warfare the default mode of human affairs, but something that happens after civility and diplomacy fails. However, I think the Art of War could provide us with another dimension of insight into notable historical events and the decisions made by world leaders today.

Sun Tzu and the Economy of Warfare
Sun Tzu argues that ‘there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare‘. In the second chapter, ‘Waging War’, he explained that prolonged military campaigns impose economic demands on the state that could outweigh the benefits – these are immediate costs of mobilising soldiers and supporting infrastructure, and the costs of maintaining that deployment at an optimum fighting condition. Eventually weakened economically, and perhaps socially, the state could become less capable of defending itself against another adversary.

Intelligence and the Use of Agents
The final section deals with the use of spies and espionage, and I found this worth commenting on because of its parallels with today’s intelligence and espionage. Sun Tzu’s greatest concern was the economic and social costs of the ineffecient usage of military resources, of protracted deployments, and he viewed espionage as a solution to that very problem.
Sun Tzu defines five classes of spy, and the method for using them:
’21. The enemy’s spies who have come to spy on us must be sought out, tempted with bribes, led away and comfortably housed. Thus they will become converted spies and available for our service.
22. It is through the information brought by the converted spy that we are able to acquire and employ local and inward spies.’

Looks very familiar, doesn’t it? Sun Tzu is making a reference to the management of insiders who become agents through the exploitation of some character flaw. This is followed up by sending the ‘doomed spy’ to create disinformation and perhaps to provide a cover for the ‘surviving spy’.

’23. It is owing to his information, again, that we can cause the doomed spy to carry false tidings to the enemy.
24. Lastly, it is by his information that the surviving spy can be used on appointed occasions.’

We also find social engineering, starting with a recce to determine certain details about people associated with a target:
‘Whether the object be to crush an army, to storm a city, or to assassinate an individual, it is always necessary to begin by finding out the names of the attendants, the aides-de-camp, and door-keepers and sentries of the general in command. Our spies must be commissioned to ascertain these. […] It is through the information brought by the converted spy that we are able to acquire and employ local and inward spies.’

Things Artificial Intelligence Could Never Have

Tags

, , , , ,

With the dire warnings of artificial super-intelligences as an existential threat being just one of several pseudo-religious ideas (simulated Universes, Ray Kurzweil’s ‘Singularity’, etc.) being courted by Silicon Valley, I wasn’t surprised that someone would attempt to build an actual religion of it. The stated purpose of Anthony Levandowski’s ‘Way of the Future’, registered as a non-profit in California, is to ‘develop and promote the realization of a Godhead based on Artificial Intelligence’, and ‘through understanding and worship of the Godhead [to] contribute to the betterment of society’.

I don’t think it can succeed where Christianity is perceived to have failed: The latter is based on ~2,500 years of human intellect and reasoning. For example, it’s reasonable (but not necessarily correct) to believe in the creator based on the principle that everything, including the Universe itself, must have an ultimate ‘First Cause’, as it’s more likely than an infinite regression of causes, and it must be something outside the natural world. This first cause must be synonymous with existence itself and manifest various absolutes, argued Thomas Aquinas somewhere in Summa Theologica. This idea addresses a perennial question, in an admittedly unsatisfactory way, to which it’s unlikely we’d ever know the answer with certainty: ‘Why is there something instead of nothing?’ And if one is of the view that the Universe is a finite and closed system, of which the laws of nature are only descriptive, it’s reasonable to believe there could exist a supernatural reality outside of what we typically observe. The scientific method of reasoning cannot tell us whether God exists or not, since that’s a metaphysical proposition, but it should lead theists and atheists alike to deeper questions about our existence.

The point here isn’t to convince anyone of these principles, but instead to make a case that it should never be substituted with the fear or worship of some artificial ‘super-intelligence’. An artificial ‘super-intelligence’ that certain ‘thought leaders’ have essentially conjured out of nothing. A ‘super-intelligence’ that requires presuppositions and assumptions that contradict observation, and that discounts things that are known. I’m particularly suspicious of the ‘super-intelligence’ thing because Silicon Valley seems intent on consolidating a monopoly that fetishises the collection of data about us, and what isn’t being mentioned in the AI debates are the facial recongition, the matching of online profiles to real-world identities, the automation of censorship – things that increase the information asymmetry between the individual an corporations.
Having developed software in multiple programming languages over the years, having reverse-engineered software, having assembled a rudimentary computer/processor of surface-mount components and having done my Masters’ review paper on a range of intelligent systems for detecting the usage of stolen ATM cards, I’m extremely skeptical of the idea that a processor-based system could ever become something more than a data processing tool of limited application, which can produce fuzzy abstractions of data sets or determine patterns or anomalies.

Recreating Human Morality
There are discussions about whether we can and should ‘program’ artificial intelligence with some form of morality. I argue that it’s unrealistic, partly because we don’t live in a society that allows objective morality or freedom of conscience. What we commonly find is the consensus isn’t really a matter of whether society values human life or fundamental rights, but rather how much society values those things. What exceptions, compromises and illogical juxtapositions of values should be made in the name of ‘progress’? What trade-offs does a person need to make just to function in society? Alexander Simon-Lewis asked exactly the right question on Wired.com: Is it dangerous to recreate this flawed human morality in machines?

The ‘rail cart’ problem, which is often mentioned in discussions about autonomous vehicles, happens to be a perfect illustration of this: Should an autonomous vehicle be programmed to terminate the lives of its occupants to prevent the deaths of innocent pedestrians? Should the vehicle change course and terminate one person to save the lives of several? Humans can weigh one course of action against the other, but has anyone questioned whether society would ever allow an autonomous vehicle to make an objective decision for itself? Society most certainly wouldn’t allow it, and so a course of action must either be programmed by a human beforehand (which might be considered murder by proxy) or remain a neglected ‘use case’. I’d bet £100 on the industry opting for the latter.
We can dig further into this problem, and ask whether it’s even ethically acceptable for manufacturers and consumers of autonomous vehicles to trust them with the lives of others, or allow a machine onto the roads that’s programmed to terminate one person’s life in preference to another because society perceives a difference in value between those persons – one could imagine an opinion piece in The Guardian arguing it would be tantamount to executing people for belonging to a perceived underclass. Should that kind of decision even be determined in real life from hypothetical scenarios?

An artificial ‘super-intelligence’ also wouldn’t be allowed to determine its own morality. What happens if this hypothetical ‘super-intelligence’, through impeccable and objective reasoning, and to ensure stability and the best quality of life for the maximum number of people, decided that every child is entitled to a mother and a father, that abortion is straight-up murder, that the death penalty should be abolished in the United States, that everything should be based around the right to life and the dignity of the human person? The inhabitants of Silicon Valley might be pissed, and someone would be modifying this AI to get the answers they wanted.

You’ll notice that most my points are made here as questions, and that wasn’t intentional. Even as a practising Catholic I genuinely don’t have the answers, and I cannot imagine how morality could be codified in a way that isn’t going to be problematic for navigating real world situations.

Why I Don’t Think Machines Could Ever Become Sentient
Ray Kurzweil would do well to watch a dissection of the human brain on YouTube. The neurons and synapses are so small and densely packed that the organ has a cross-section with the smoothness and consistency of really thick jelly. Could the workings of this structure, in all its intricacy and complexity, realistically be reproduced on manufactured hardware? According to the Human Brain Project, the biological human brain has ~86 billion neurons, each with ~1700 connections. To equate that with a computer is to seriously under-estimate its complexity, and this poses a real technical problem for proponents of artificial ‘super-intelligence’.
To simulate this on a computer would certainly require a data structure for each neuron, and maybe even a low neuron/processor ratio too. Even with a clever use of instantiation and destructors to simulate only the parts of the brain associated with intellect and cognition, such a task seems computationally possible but it would likely require an extremely low-latency network consisting of tens of billions of processor cores.
In early 2014, the fourth most powerful computer was able to simulate (to what degree?) 1 second’s activity of 1% of a human brain. This required more than 700,000 processor cores and 1.4 petabytes of system memory. The processing took about 40 minutes. At the time of writing this, the hardware is still within the top-ten most powerful.

But isn’t technology advancing at an ‘exponential’ rate? Well, technological progress is hard to quantify in general terms, let alone state it’s increasing ‘exponentially’, but Moore’s Law (which isn’t really a ‘law’) predicted/roadmapped the number of transistors for a given area would double every 18 months to 2 years, which means memory and storage capacities increase, processors can perform more operations per second, and the integrated circuits of a given density become cheaper to manufacture over time. Obviously there’s a limit to this, since a processor cannot have an infinite number of transistors, and at some point (somewhere between 5-9nm) quantum tunnelling will interfere with transistor states. Moore’s Law doesn’t predict, and is not even directly relevant to, changes in the form or substance of technologies. Other than having more transistors in their ICs, consumer devices, such as PCs, laptops, smartphones, MP3 players, digital cameras, etc. aren’t different in substance or form to the products we bought a decade ago. And computers have remained fundamentally the same in nature, regardless of how many transistors, diodes, capacitors and resistors form their circuitry.

What does this mean for machine intelligence? First thing is we still don’t have a precise definition of consciousness, what the difference is between living and sentient matter. Also it’s still arguable whether consciousness is God-given (as I believe it is) or whether it’s an emergent property of a complex, yet ultimately deterministic, system that’s purely the result of an improbable arrangement of molecules and 3.5 billion years of adaptation to the environment. And perhaps our consciousness is dependent on some currently unknown phenomenon at the sub-atomic scale.
What we do know is the computing technology we’re familiar with couldn’t be anything other than deterministic (possibly with the exception of neuromorphic hardware). In fact, a computer is quite mechanistic to anyone who understands how it works, even when endowed with some learning algorithm. We have a microprocessor containing arrays of nano-scale transistors in various arrangements, and each array will always produce the same output given a certain input. This input, the op codes and operands, are fetched from another array of transistors that constitute the system memory, and they’re in turn generated by a compiler that translates from a high-level programming language. A computer may as well be a doorstop or a brick without the software, and what is software other than a collection of man-made instructions on a dead storage medium? This is why a Dell Optiplex is no more capable of sentience than a BBC Micro.

Web Services and Stored Procedures from Scratch

Tags

, , ,

In the last post I described how to get started with using SQL Server Compact Edition in Visual Studio, with a database and table accessible in SQL Server Object Explorer. From that point it’s possible to develop an application that sends query commands to the database server, but that could allow for arbitrary query execution if the traffic between the application and server was being forged, or if a vulnerability in the application was exploited. It’s a good idea to use something like stored procedures and Web Services to decouple the database from the application.
A Web Service consists essentially of those three things: A connection string, a Web Service method and the base classes in System.Web.Services. The Web Service (ASMX) template is provided in Visual Studio 2015 and is added as an item to an existing ASP.NET project. This will create an empty Web Service class file, assembly references and import statements.

Like any database application, the Web Service requires a connection string for the database server, and this can be acquired in the SQL Server Object Explorer. The Web.config file should include a connectionStrings section that contains the connection string:

A WebMethod instantiates the SqlConnection and implements a SqlCommand. Although it’s possible to pass a conventional SQL command to the database server, it’s better to call a stored procedure instead. In the example below I’ve placed ‘spGetAllPhrases‘ into the SqlCommand function.

Stored Procedures
In the database, I now need a stored procedure called ‘spGetAllPhrases’ that returns all records from a table:


SET ANSI_NULLS ON
GO
SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON
GO

CREATE PROCEDURE spGetAllPhrases
AS
SELECT * FROM [dbo].[allphrases]
GO

With the stored procedure added, I’ve checked again to ensure SqlCommand refers to it:
using (SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand("spGetAllPhrases"));

So far I’ve added a very basic Web Service and stored procedure combination. The chances are we could need Web Services that passes input parameters from a client that requests only records matching whatever criteria.

The first thing we need is to translate this requirement into a stored procedure. Here the stored procedure queries the database table for records with a given Category value:


SET ANSI_NULLS ON
GO
SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON
GO
-- =============================================
-- Author:
-- Create date:
-- Description:
-- =============================================
CREATE PROCEDURE spGetPhrasesByCategory @Category VarChar(50)

AS
SELECT * FROM [dbo].[allphrases] WHERE Category LIKE @Category
GO

When the stored procedure is executed, it will request the input parameter, which in this case is @Category, and return the results of the query. Now we need to create a Web Service method that gets and passes the Category variable to the stored procedure as an input variable.

Here, GetPhraseByCategory() is returned as a DataTable, as with the other Web Methods, and like the other Web Methods, the data table is populated by whatever’s returned by the stored procedure.
The difference here is we declare categoryName as the method’s input string – when the ASMX file is launched and the method is called, it will expect the client to supply a value for this. This variable is used as the stored procedure’s @Category parameter.

When using a browser to launch the Web Service, results are presented as an XML document.

Adding Records
A Web Service can also update a database table through a stored procedure created to accept input parameters. These parameters and their data types are defined after the stored procedure name.


CREATE PROCEDURE spAddPhrase @English VarChar(200), @German VarChar(200), @Note VarChar(200), @Category VarChar(50)
AS
BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON;

INSERT INTO [dbo].[allphrases] (English, German, Note, Category)
VALUES (@English, @German, @Note, @Category)
END

After running the stored procedure to check it works, it’s time to add a Web Method that calls and passes the variables to it.

This time we declare the method as ‘public string’ since we only need to return a message string telling the client whether the execution was successful.

The code for this project can be downloaded here…