Re: semantic data structure/web architecture and innate logic
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 00:33:19 GMT
Message-ID: <iLv5b.262524$It4.123042_at_rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>
"Wick" <member37571_at_dbforums.com> wrote in message news:3325673.1062615713_at_dbforums.com...
>
> The way our semantic system works is inherently different than the
> traditional db/rdb. While dba's must define relationships and create
> rows, columns, tables and fields (static), ours does not require the
> implementation of these things to create dynamic relationships- we call
> the semantic data structure, "dynamic" for this reason, amonst others.
In general, we c.d.t people consider the semantics to live in the "rows, columns" etc. and the definitions thereof that you dismiss. So I'm not at all clear what you have left that you can call "semantic." For comparison, it's pretty clear that, for example, XML tags carry zero semantic content; they are merely suggestive of meaning when viewed by a human, but have no innate semantic content of themselves.
> From readers' opinions and comments, I am seeing that people are trying
> to "normalize" our semantic structure into a rd model- which is really
> not possible.
Is it really not possible? That doesn't sound good. Relations can contain any possible data structure; if your system can't encode relations then it is less expressive than a system that can have relations. Also, if your system doesn't have formal rules of normalization, then you have no way to tell whether your metadata allows redundant data, which is a significant flaw in your attempts to capture semantics.
> I am speaking language of: "semantic data structure" and
> we are not communicating.
Okay, so you've made up a new language, but that rather makes it your responsibility to figure out how we can communicate.
> But I want to stress the structure I am discussing is as -or more-
> useful in the same application space as the static traditonal one you
> all use everyday.
If it is to be considered as useful, then it will have to at least be able to do everything the "static traditional" one can do. Can it do that? What kinds of integrity constaints does it support?
> I need to prove that!
If you really mean "prove" then you're going to need a solid mathematical foundation for your system. Do you have such a model?
> This system is built on a new model of human cognition and simulated
> dual memory... [snip]
I have no idea what any of this means.
> What I am trying to understand is if what I am claiming about the
> semantic data structure makes any sense to any db experts.
Not so far, but I'm interested to see what you come up with.
> I guess I'm talking a different language... Would love
> to find a common road to get to Rome.
Sure. But let me ask a question: did you spend any time mastering the fundamentals of data management as they exist today before you tried to leapfrog them?
Marshall Received on Thu Sep 04 2003 - 02:33:19 CEST