Re: some ideas about db rheory
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 04:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
On 4 kol, 02:14, rp_at_raampje.(none) (Reinier Post) wrote:
> So this VIN is just a regular relation attribute for the Car relation.
This VIN is not a regular relational attribute in Relational Theory. It was criticized, see E. Codd, RM/T.
> It is not something that requires you to go beyond the relational model.
My model is a kind of semantic model.
> OK. Now you're posting this in a newsgroup full of people who claim
> that identifiers are implementation details, funbdamentally wrong. etc.
> I am not even one of those people. I'm just asking how you prove them wrong.
As I already wrote in this thread, I gave theoretical background for my model and DB constructs. I do not understand why this is so confusing. You can give example, real world DBs. For example, how to solve history in m-n relationships, or how to solve online web applications where data should be available and public as soon as it is entered. I can show you how to solve these DBs using my solution. So people can see superiority of solution. Existing DB theory has hundreds or maybe thousands papers about Historicals, Temporals or complex DBs, but they do not work in real life.
> Data: facts regarding the state of affairs at the time they are asserted
> or retracted by a database change. Metadata: facts regarding such assertions
> or retractions, e.g. when they are made, or by whom. The distinction is
> necessarily interpretation dependent.
Regarding facts I would like to emphasize the following:
1. As far as know , time (or person) is an attribute (in existing
theory) . It is not Metadata.
2. You did not defined facts. So your definition of data and Metadata is based on undefined terms.
3. In my paper I did not defined facts, but I defined;: a) facts about entity, b) facts about attribute, c) facts about data (see subsections 3.4 - 3.9 in my paper) these facts should satisfy the following: to be permanent(to be memorized), awareness, and they keepmeaning - a fact should determine and denote something. Knowledge from subsections 3.4 - 3.9 from my paper is involved in construction of concepts.
4. you do not distinguish facts from factual sentences (see 3.4 in my paper)
5. you do not distinguish factual sentence from logical sentence.
Vladimir Odrljin Received on Sat Aug 15 2009 - 13:29:18 CEST