Re: RM formalism supporting partial information

From: Jan Hidders <>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:54:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On 14 nov, 14:47, David BL <> wrote:
> Nearly two weeks ago I posted to the thread "atomic" regarding a join
> operator I had defined back in January. A discussion with Paul C
> inspired me to more carefully develop the mathematical formalism.

The mathematical formalism is not your biggest problem, altough it could certainly be improved (if you want I might be tempted to help), but what seems to be missing is a decent understanding of what all the math exactly means. What is the intuition behind your approach? Why would it make sense? You hint at this with the interpretation function I, but this should not be a side remark in the middle but rather the foundation and justification of the rest, and that doesn't seem to be there.

It will not suprise you to learn that the use of the nested relational model as a representation for uncertain data is not really a new thought. I could give references, but you may want to Google yourself first, or maybe not because it might spoil the fun.

You may also want to Google my name, to see why I think I can get away with being so arrogant. ;-)

> There is far too much detail to post. The following is a link to a MS
> word document.

A final tip. Decent database theory doesn't come in Word. It comes in LaTeX. :-)


  • Jan Hidders
Received on Thu Nov 15 2007 - 18:54:29 CET

Original text of this message