Re: some information about anchor modeling

> Chpater 15 of that book is entirely devoted to the particular subject of
> "history of the data itself".

These authors do not apply any of the points (ii) a,b,c,d,e,f that I mentioned in my first message in this thread from 14 July. These points are related to the large and important parts of the "History".

>And if you think that there is a logical difference between "a statement about >the modeled reality that was true for some period of time" and "a statement >about the beliefs recorded in the database and the period during which they >were recorded in said database", then you are wrong too, and pathetically wrong at that.
>
>
>
> There is nothing to stop relational theory from still applying, even when the "modeled reality" is the very set of beliefs itself that were recorded in the database, and there is nothing that stops the presented concepts of temporal data management from applying to that case too.
>
>
>
> There is a _practical_ difference (the issue of retroactive updates can, or should, never arise when it comes to "the history of the beliefs that were recorded in the database"), but that does not count as a _logical_ difference.
>
>
>
> There may be differences in the algorithms that turn out to be the most >optimal for dealing with either of both kinds of history, and there may be >differences in the syntactic shorthands that are built into the language and >offered to the user for dealing with either kind of history, but none of those >count as logical differences either.

I am not sure that you understand my db design. In my database design, I model states of entities and relationships. To be precise, a state of an entity (or relationship) is knowledge about the entity (relationship) (see my paper “Database design and data model founded on concept constructs and knowledge constructs”, section 3.9 and 4.2.4.1 at http://www.dbdesign11.com) . My db design changes the definition of truth and truth conditions. Truth and truth conditions depend on the state of the corresponding entity. I think that this is very important result.

The relationship between meaning and truth is also defined in my model. (see my paper “Semantic databases and semantic machines”, section 3, at http://www.dbdesign11.com )  

> The only thing you have done is renamed DELETE (to CLOSE, IIRC). Doing that >does not eliminate update anomalies. At best, you only replace DELETE >anomalies with CLOSE anomalies.

There is a huge difference between "close" and "delete". These things can not be compared at all.

Vladimir Odrljin Received on Sat Jul 28 2012 - 17:30:54 CEST