Re: some information about anchor modeling

> > b) My database solution introduces and enables the construction and
> > maintenance of a
> > “history of changes”. My work gives the first complete solution of
> > the “history”
> > problem.
>
> Are you familiar with the work by one Nikos Lorentzos ? I have a book in my >library that was published 2003, summarizing his approach.
>
> And since you claim that your solution is "complete", I reckon you > also know what to do about and how to deal with, say, cyclic point types ?

If you refer to the book “Temporal Data & the Relational Model “ by C. j. Date, Hugh Darwen, Nikos Lorencos, then you are wrong, because this book is about temporal data rather then about history of data.  

> > d) My solution introduces only one operation with data, and that is
> > the addition of new
> > data to the database. There is no deleting or updating of data in
> > the database. This
> > solution, therefore, controls redundancy
>
> Wait a sec. Just because you allow only additions in your databases, implies that it is impossible to have redundancy in your databases ?

I wrote “controls redundancy”. Shortly, by “controls redundancy” I mean the following: My solution does not update and delete data. So it does not have update and delete anomalies (usually caused by redundancy). The intention of this solution is to save all that is entered into the database. My solution uses the binary structures and only two events. Therefore, it is possible to set powerful constraints on the level of data entry. The possible events are: “create new data” and “close the existing data”.

> > e) Note that there are some existing theories about changes, but that
> > all of them use
> > undefined terms like “the world”, “the situation of the world”,
> > “the state of the world”,
> > “states of affairs”, etc.
>
> "Closed WORLD assumption", anybody ?
 

There is a precise definition about the "Closed WORLD assumption". However, "the world" and "a change of the world" are the most undefined words in the world.  

> > In contrast to this, my solution models
> > only changes of entities
> > and relationships, which are terms that are defined.
>
> No kidding. Are they ?

Please note that the entity and relationship are precisely defined in my papers. But if you believe that the entity and relationship are not well defined in other papers, then you may be right.

Vladimir Odrljin Received on Tue Jul 24 2012 - 03:23:30 CEST