Re: Storing data and code in a Db with LISP-like interface
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 23:04:38 +0200
Message-ID: <4457c93d$0$31655$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Neo wrote:
> ... I assert that dbd's methodology is
> the most general/systematic/flexible. I do not assert it is the
> fastest, smallest, most user friendly, least resource hungry, most
> popular, etc.
I have no desire to disprove your assertion that "dbd's methodology is the most general/systematic/flexible." - I don't even understand it.
I do appreciate that you are going your own stubborn way to create a system that has the qualities you want it to have. You have been accused of re-inventing just about everybodies favourite toy/tool. To me that means you must be doing /something/ right.
Some of those qualities - as I understood them -
reminded me of prolog. You downloaded it, and
played with it. I hope you get some
refinement of/reflection on your ideas from that.
OTOH I would also appreciate it if you would stop making false assertions as to what other systems can't do.
Nick Malik wrote:
>>If you expect intelligent people to hold a discourse with you, >>you have to treat us with enough respect to back away from rampant >>superiority to think about the question.
>
> Sorry, but I took mAsterdam question to mean: what is the significance
> of representing things, which in this case was the relator/verb (which
> I was calling relationship) as shown in the "john like mary" example.
You might read it as just: Please be specific when stating what you want to know. See below
>>You have assumed that it is valid to create a relationship between >>two things and to want to know what that relationship is. >>I have SHOWN you how Prolog would do this, >>by identifying the relationship as one of the items in the tuple.
>
> Sorry, I meant the thing being represented in the function's name.
> Please show how that data is represented as
> systematically/flexibly/generically as in dbd.
You had demos of dbd's previous incarnation at a site, but it seems down.
>>Prolog and Lisp are knowledge representation systems. >>Relational databases are primarily data representation systems, >>but if you look at the schema, you can quite frequently ascertain >>the business rules that existed at the time of design. >>Perhaps this is a bad place to code business rules. >>Perhaps not. I think that there are arguments both ways. >>Regardless, knowledge is represented both in the form of facts and >>in the form, in the case of Lisp and Prolog, in deductions.
>
>
> I have no opinion on the above, but I still assert that dbd provides
> the most general/systematic/flexible way to represent things. For
> instance, dbd does not represent the data in Prolog's function any
> differently than other data. For instance, dbd does not represent the
> name of an atom any differently than other data. And I have and can
> show again examples to demonstrate these points.
>
>
>>Therefore it is absolutely incumbent upon you to explain >>why you would want to choose a knowledge representation >>that does not collect a bit of information and then assert >>that the mining of that information is so fundamental to >>the requirements as to be beneath you to explain it.
>
> Excuse me? Both the dbd and Prolog examples represented approximately
> same things.
>
> In dbd: (create john like mary)
> In Prolog: like(john, mary)
>
> I then showed how to get like (relator/verb) when provided john and
> mary with the following query: (select john * mary). Please show how to
> do it as systematically in Prolog.
You have created vocabulary of your own - it isn't allways easy to see what needs some translation. I can't read your mind and I did not read all your previous posts. It helps if you are specific about the information needs.
I took some of your statements rather literal to bitplumb the following:
-----------neorel.pro
thing(john). % John is a thing to represent.
thing(mary). % Mary is a thing to represent.
thing(like). % Like is a thing to represent.
thing(relationship(john, like, mary)).
% The relationship "john like mary"
% is a thing to represent.
Query to determine the relator or the verb instead of the relationship.
?- thing(relationship(john, Relator_Verb, mary)).
Relator_Verb = like ;
No
One of the questions you (dissappointingly) skipped was:
(Neo)
>>> Enter the following relationships in prolog: >>> class (john, person). meaning one of john's class is person >>> instance (person, john). meaning one of person's instance is john >>
(mAsterdam)
>> Are you stating the same fact in two ways or are these two facts? Received on Tue May 02 2006 - 23:04:38 CEST