Re: The original version

In this post I would like to reflect on solutions for relationships, given in Anchor Modeling. In fact it is not clear what a relationship is.

In Section 3 of the paper the authors write: “Furthermore, the relationships between the anchors are captured through ties”. But in section 2 there is Def2 which says: “Def2. An anchor A(C) is table with one column”.
Now it turns out that the relationships between tables with one column are captured through ties? Of course this is nonsense.

In my paper I defined relationships using keys and attributes. So in my solution a relationship can have attributes. As far as I know other authors define relationships without attributes. In Anchor Modeling relationships are defined without attributes. But suddenly historized ties have the attribute T. T is time. This is contradiction.

The representation of relationships through ties is naive. Let me give the following simple example of m-n relationship between Person and Address (where m, n 1)
Here, we can’t apply Anchor Modeling, because Address is not an entity. (Anchor Modeling section 2.4: “A tie represents association between two or more entities.)
We can note that each state has M zip codes, every zip code has K cities, every city has L streets, every street has X buildings, every building has Y apartments.

Anchor Modeling is represented as Data Warehousing approach but at the end of the paper this model is suggested as superior to existing data models.
Considering my criticism of the entity solutions (see my post - 14jun in this thread), then the relationships between entities have serious problems (in Anchor Modeling).

Vladimir Odrljin Received on Mon Jul 12 2010 - 13:17:54 CEST