Re: some information about anchor modeling

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.
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.

1.
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?

2.
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 In my opinion, this work can not be published because it is not known on what is a major and fundamental concept of Anchor defined.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.

3.
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. Extensions are introduced in the following way: The extensions of two concepts F and G are identical objects if and only if all and only the objects that fall under F fall under G. (see section 2 and 4.2.1).

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:
(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.

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)

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:

(i) A plurality of things in which all the things satisfy the concept;
(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.

(c)

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.

3.
By accepting Frege's definition about the extension, we can write the following:

  (1)        Ǝx€xX
  (2)        €xX  &  €yY => (x = y  X ≡ Y)

Here €xX stands for “x is the extension of X” X stands for the concept X (I use notation which is used in the works from J. Burgess)

From the above it is clear that:
  (3) Ǝ!x €xX

The corrected version of Anchor Modeling has title: "Anchor Modeling - Agile information modeling in evolving data environment." In section 6, page 12 the authors have explained the idea of "evolving" and wrote: "This is solved by adding an attribute PR_DUR_Program_Duration to the PR_Program anchor ...". In section 2 there are the following definitions: Definition1 (Identities). Let I be an infinite set of symbols, which are used as identities.
Definition4 (Anchor). An anchor A is a string. An extension of an anchor is a subset of I.

Obviously, the above statements from Anchor Modeling are in a contradiction with (3).

Vladimir Odrljin Received on Tue Oct 15 2013 - 00:04:24 CEST