Home -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Interpretation of Relations

Re: Interpretation of Relations

From: Joe Thurbon <usenet_at_thurbon.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 06:04:30 GMT
Message-ID: <2007012016041750073-usenet_at_thurboncom> 






On 2007-01-20 11:49:20 +1000, "JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> said:



> Joe Thurbon wrote:



>> 
>> 
>> NOT Joes hair is Red
>> NOT Joes hair is Blond
>> 
>> Is this right?




> 

> I see nothing wrong with your logic. What you are saying via an empty


> relation is that there is no proposition for which Joe has a hair

> colour. In fact I think from it you can infer: Joe has no hair colour.




> (which given my external knowledge --> Joe has no hair).





Not a bad guess, actaully.



> 

>> If so, it leads me to a question about modelling missing
>> information. (And a lot of other questions, too). If not, is there a
>> simple thing that I've missed?




> 

> My current understanding is that:


> 

> * If an attribute is Inapplicable then simply stating no proposition

> containing it is sufficient for that fact to be inferred.

> * If the attribute is Applicable but we do not have value for it, then

> we must state this propositionally to avoid inferring it as

> inapplicable under the CWA.

> * Alternatively if the attribute is 'possible'  (we don't know if it is

> missing or inapplicable) then we must also state a proposition

> reflecting this in order to avoid the inapplicability inference.




I'm not sure I follow.



When you say "an attribute is inapplicable" I'm guessing that what 
you're saying is "The domain of my relation is expressive enough to 
assert a relevant proposition, but, actually, that proposition is false 
for all elements of that domain?" That seems to be another way of 
saying "This relation is a reasonable one to invoke the CWA over." Is 
that what you intend?



Actually, I'm not really confident I understand what you mean by 
applicable and innapplicable.



In the second point above, are you saying that, in the Hair Colour 
example, we'd need a second relation which is basically "Those for whom 
we know the hair colour" and if Joe doesn't appear in that relation, 
then we should not make any inferences with respect to the Hair Colour 
relation. If so, I find this a little problematic: I would have thought 
that relations should be interpreble when considered individually.



> 

> It is worth noting that many view db-query results as coming with the


> caveat "as far as I, poor naive database, know". Jim.




This last comment has helped me flesh out an idea, so thanks. I'm 
currently trying to work out a (relatively formal) logical 
interpretation of relations. I'm happy to embellish if you are 
interested, but I won't foist it on you if you're not. (I hope you are 
interested, it won't take much to get me started....).



Informally, it boils down to: if a database should be considered as a 
set of logical assertions, then you have to be very careful how you 
treat missing information, especially in the presence of the CWA. In 
facts the particular logic in which the facts are being asserted in is 
a modal logic.



In particular, there are two types of relations,
- those which should be interpreted as 'facts about the world', which 
can't really handle missing information, because of the CWA, and
- those which should be interpreted as 'facts about my knowledge of the 
world' which can handle missing information.



I must confess, though, that I've not really read widely enough to know 
if this is a new take on RA. But perhaps someone here can let me know.



Cheers,


Joe
Received on Sat Jan 20 2007 - 07:04:30 CET












Original text of this message