Re: Massively distributed data

From: x <x-false_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 17:42:02 +0300
Message-ID: <40a236f2$1_at_post.usenet.com>


"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message news:c7tacc$sgp$1_at_news.netins.net...
> "x" <x-false_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:40a20063$1_at_post.usenet.com...
> > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> >
> >
> > "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> > news:c7s5um$7nk$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > > I think this is a fascinating question and maybe some of you will
agree
> > and
> > > will have suggestions. I sat next to Jim Waldo from Sun at a lunch at
a
> > > Jini Community Conference in Boston earlier this year. He was talking
> > about
> > > medical information coming directly from people in some way. The idea
> > would
> > > be to have information about the health of an individual come from
their
> > > body. This was still in the stage of formulating the problem
statement,
> > so
> > > the rest is just related to my own reflections on the problem.
> >
> > > Possible simple scenario:
> >
> > I hope this would not be possible :-)

>
> OK, let's figure that somehow there is data from individuals with some
> ability to push itself and/or be accessed.  Remove the need to consider
the
> options for how this data flows from the person.

But this is a very important issue and cannot be easily removed.

> Yes, you are right that at any point of interest, you would want to > take/have a snapshot of all of the data attributes.

If the data is "massively distributed" how could this be done ?

> Now, what about the fact that this could BE a database, but the natural
> database (and this is where my question is) seems to be one where you can
> navigate from node to node -- individual values, rather than one where you
> treat all values of a "relation" as a set, using set operators and all.
If
> this data were available, what would our "live" database look ike? --dawn

 It doesn't matter how it look like, it only matter what you can do with it.

About "navigation from node to node" :
1) What is a "node" ? An "atomic" piece of data, a set, a graph ? 2) For "navigation from node to node" I suppose you have "links"

    What is a "link" ? An "atomic" piece of data, a set, a graph ? 3) What is "navigation" ?
If you need to "navigate" from a "start" "node" A to a "destination" "node" B and there is no direct "link" from A to B (or there are several links) you need to specify the path from A to B. How would you do this ?

In what way "navigation" differ from the relational operators ?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  • Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Received on Wed May 12 2004 - 16:42:02 CEST

Original text of this message