Re: some information about anchor modeling
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 15:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <67412dc4-b479-4307-a646-6b47ea3db3e7_at_googlegroups.com>
Dana ponedjeljak, 11. veljače 2013. 08:41:14 UTC+1, korisnik Derek Asirvadem napisao je:
Hi Derek,
In this post I would like to comment on "Conceptualan Model" in the work of
Anchor Modeling.
1.
2.
3.
This paper works with concepts and builds a database using the conceptual model,
but in this paper does not exist the definition of the concept. Even more in
this paper does not mention the concept.
RM and ERM have a contradiction, which I think is fundamental. Both models RM
and ERM uses implicitly Frege's definition of the concept.
They use the attributes that are actually properties. We know that the model
that uses the properties is opposed with Russell's paradox. Russell's paradox
states that the definition of the concept over the properties leads to
paradoxes.
So, the question of the definition of the concept is a fundamental question.
But when it comes to concepts, then Anchor Modeling build some unusual
construction. For example, in section 2 Basic notations of Anchor Modeling, is
mentioned "set of actors." Of course, these sets do not exist. The elements of
set are not physical objects.
Next in this section provides a definition of identities. I already wrote that
this is one of the most complex concepts in the philosophy of which are
dedicated hundreds of pages. This is the definition:
Def 1 Let ID be an infinite set of symbols, which are used as identities.
Now, the main concept is defined.
Def 2. An anchor A(C) is a table with one column. The domain of C is ID. The
primary key for A is C.
On the same page is written: Attributes are used to present properties of
anchors. This is in contradiction with Def 2, which states that the Ancor has
one column.
There is also the following questions: how are constructed concepts of
attributes, which are represented as atomic structure. How did they construct
concept of time. Is it the time attribute?
In the improved version of Anchor Modeling, a new definition of Anchor is
introduced:
Def 4 An anchor A is a string. An extension of an anchor is a subset Of I.
(Here, "I" means the same as ID from the aforementioned Def 1).
In this version of Anchor Modeling, again there is no one word about the
concepts. What's wrong here, is that the authors did not write, which theory
they use for this definition. It is not written which axioms they use. In my
opinion, this work can not be published because it is not known on what is a
major and fundamental concept of Anchor defined.
The Def 4 used alongside, the following terms: set and extension. Note that the
basic concepts of set theory (primitives) are the following two: set and
element. In Frege's theory, the primitives are concept (falling under) and
extension.
Another problem is the question: which data model they use. Do they use data
sets as a model? Or they use table as it is in their paper, Anchor Modeling.
In my work, Database design and data model founded on concept and knowledge
constructs from 2008 (see at http://www.dbdesign11.com) I use Frege's definition
of concept + Frege's definition of extension. Concepts are defined by law V,
that is, by properties.
I also showed that Russell's Paradox does not make sense and is based on wrong conceptions. I also added part of theory which Frege missed. The following cases show why Russell's paradox does not make sense.
(a)
I introduced formula (3.3.3) in my paper from 2008. This formula for attributes
is as follows:
S (the m-attribute, the concept of the property) = T iff
the m-attribute matches the entity’s attribute. … (3.3.3)
This formula is written as the identity in the propositional logic. This
equivalence is true only if both sides are true, that is, when both semantic
procedures works. The corresponding m-attribute must satisfy the concept and
this m-attribute must be identified. All other cases in (3.3.3) do not make
sense.
Russell’s paradox, we can explain in the following way: We will call the set of
all sets that are not members of themselves “N”. The following two cases are
possible:
So we can not construct set N, it means we can not identified this object.
Therefore, the object N does not satisfy (3.3.3).
Note also that (3.3.3) works only with abstract objects. These are m-attributes.
So, you can not construct “set of actors” as it is done in Anchor Modeling.
In my paper, I can apply (3.3.3) also, for m-entities, m-relationships and mstates.
(b)
(i) A plurality of things in which all the things satisfy the concept;
(c)
3.
(i) If N is a member of itself, then by definition it must not be a member of
itself.
(ii) if N is not a member of itself, then by definition it must be a member of
itself.
In my paper from 2008, I introduced the following procedure which defines the
purpose of concepts:
5.3 Definition of Concept
A concept is a construct which determines one or both of the following:
(ii) A particular thing from the plurality determined by (i)■
In order to identify an entity we use the following procedures:
Procedure1: Identifying the plurality.
Procedure2: Identifying individuals.
Procedure2 is not effective without Procedure1.
--
For example, if one should to find certain entity, then he will first use the
concept which defines plurality with the corresponding properties. Then he will
look for this individual entity in the plurality. To determine a plurality we
need a concept. To determine an individual we use identification.
Russell Paradox in fact, asking only one individual, that is the set N, so we do
not need a concept, we need only identification of this individual.
Note that my formula (3.3.3) is not an axiom. It specifies two semantic
procedures that are interconnected.
My definition of concept is totally new. In addition to the concept, it involves
the identification, structured knowledge (ie knowledge about entity, data,
attributes, ...). My definition of the concepts is associated with history of
events.
The decomposition of concepts of entities (or relationship) into the
corresponding atomic structures was done.
By accepting Frege's definition about the extension, we can write the following:
(1) Ǝx€xX
(2) €xX & €yY => (x = y X ≡ Y)