Re: Atomic Structures

Dana srijeda, 9. prosinca 2015. u 09:34:09 UTC+1, korisnik Norbert_Paul napisao je:
> vldm10 wrote:
> >
> > I would like to put this topic on the discussion because it has never been
> > seriously analyzed in this group. The theme is one of the most important,
> > because Atomic structures provide a variety of important solutions for
> > databases. Atomic structures are also of great importance in some other
> > areas, such as the atomic propositions and atomic predicate, they are also
> > related to atomic concepts and atomic facts.
>
> This not very precise. Which kind of solutions? Which other areas may benefit
> from atomic structures? In particular, do areas exists where atomic structures
> are of great importance but the area name is not preceded by "atomic"?
>
> What do you mean by "atomic". Is it the "A", or "AI", of ACID? I do not
> yet understand if this is the case or not.
>
> > Atomic structure of the entity have the following format: {identifier,
> > attribute} ... ... ... (a)
> >
> > In my solution for the atomic structure, along with the identifier and
> > attribute in the scheme (a), I add "knowledge of the identifier" to this
> > identifier and "knowledge of the attribute" to the attribute.
>
> I would prefer a precise definition of "atomic structure" here. What does
> " ... ... ... "
> mean? It would be beautiful, if the definition was be preceeded by an
> illustrative example that already hints at the axioms (and benefits)
> of an "atomic structure". Is a byte atomic? Note that a byte can be
> considered an 8-tuple of bits.
>
> > In this post I will write about Codd's RM / T and about 6NF (sixth normal
> > form) by Darwen, Date& Lorentcos. I will show that these two papers, can
> > not solve the problem of atomic structures, at all.
>
> Your following part is quite long. I only sifted it briefly and found some
> parts that could be used as defining properties (axioms) of an
> "atomic structure". However, unless the definition of "atomic structure"
> is left unspecified I see no point in following a discussion on it.
>
> I also prefer a discussion style that focusses on benefits of atomic
> structures rather than on novelty. Note that the wheel is not
> "anything new" but it still is quite useful.
>
> > Vladimir Odrljin
> Norbert

I think it's all pretty accurate.
For this user group I wrote about it a lot and also gave many examples where my solution with atomic structures provides solutions, and existing theory can not solve it. These are solutions for the most complex problems.

By "atomic" I mean "not divisible". In the context of this post, the atomic structures are the smallest structures. They are also fundamental structures of whom are constructed other data structures. The term "structure" I use as a more abstract object involving some form of complex organization. The term "Atomic Structures" in my solutions refer to "Atomic Data Structures" and the mathematical structures that represents "Atomic Data Structures".

The atomic structure of one attribute of one entity has the following format:

{identifier, attribute} ... (a)

This format (a) was written as a set. This set is the scheme for the identifier of an entity and one attribute of that entity.

Note that one entity can have n attributes. If the above-written entity of formula (a), have 5 attributes, then I would have presented the entity as follows:

{identifier, attribute1},
{identifier, attribute2},
{identifier, attribute3},      ....       (b)
{identifier, attribute4}, 
{identifier, attribute5}.

Note that existing data models, represent scheme (b) with the following format:
{identifier, attribute1, attribute2, attribute3, attribute4, attribute5} that is as one set.

Vladimir Odrljin Received on Thu Dec 10 2015 - 00:40:52 CET