Re: Nulls, integrity, the closed world assumption and events
Date: 22 Jan 2007 07:29:17 -0800
Message-ID: <1169479757.892511.196330_at_m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
JOG wrote:
> dawn wrote:
> > JOG wrote:
> > > dawn wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > 2) When we collect and show data to a human, we are often collecting it
> > > > with "blanks" and then showing it back to the user with blanks. For
> > > > example, they might have a screen and related reports where the
> > > > proposition Person 12345 is a male named John Doe whose hair color is
> > > > _________. The user sees the blank and does not fill it in, either
> > > > because John Doe is bald or because they do not know his hair color.
> > > > Someone else then sees a report that might provide this very
> > > > proposition back.
> > >
> > > This is so wrong my head is starting to hurt. I think it may be the
> > > fundamental point that you are grappling with. A record is not a
> > > proposition. A proposition is not a record.
> >
> > I am aware of that. There are two places where propositions reside and
> > have logic applied to them, however. We can talk about propositions
> > that users "know" and are passing into the computer through their
> > interface, right? Can we also talk about the propositions that land
> > back in their brains based on the representation they are getting back?
>
> I cannot emphasize enough the mistake here. Humans do not store
> propositions, we think nebulously and amorphously and not at all in
> terms of logical propositions. We struggle hard to convert our thoughts
> into propositions in order to communicate, and it is these statements
> of fact that a database should store. (Sadly without telepathy those
> original concepts and entities are stuck in our own individual heads).
>
> Again thoughts, entities and concepts can have missing information (but
> not holes in predicates) - hence the name 'conceptual model'.
> Propositions cannot - logical model. There is no getting away from
> this. It was also the fundamental point missed by the Semantic Web, and
> many believe as the prime role in its slow deterioration.
>
> I am 100% sure there are solutions to all of your human/computer
> interface concerns that can be solved via a solid theoretical model
> without retrograding to the mistakes of the past, and I beseech you to
> think forward with solutions to your practical issues. For instance you
> want to provide multi-value propositions back to the user.
Yes, the "user" of the DBMS, including developers, end-users, and any software clients.
> 1NF however
> appears useful (essential?) for proposition manipulation.
I have mentioned before, but perhaps not recently, that other than performance issues, I have little interest in what happens under the covers, outside of the interfaces between humans, clients and the DBMS. So, if it is best to put data in 1NF behind the scenes, so be it. I am not convinced that is best, but nor is it a question that concerns me. Developer data modeling is related to the interface between the DBMS and the developer (for all functions a developer might do, including debugging). That is where I would like to see better optimization.
> I see no
> reason why there cannot be a solution to this that accommodates both
> standpoints.
I agree. What do you think of products such as Intersystems Cache'? What would you suspect (or know) might be missing for such a product to meet your needs? --dawn Received on Mon Jan 22 2007 - 16:29:17 CET