Re: some information about anchor modeling

Dana utorak, 15. listopada 2013. 00:04:24 UTC+2, korisnik vldm10 napisao je:
> 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.

Instead of “This formula is written as the identity in the propositional logic.” should be: This formula is written as the equivalence from the propositional logic. (iff stands for “ if and only if ”)

>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 m-
>
> states.
>
>
>
> (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 should be: €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 Wed Oct 23 2013 - 00:11:55 CEST