> On Tuesday, 31 December 2019 22:16:57 UTC+11, Nicola wrote:
> On 2019-12-30, Derek Ignatius Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com
First off. Happy New Year, all the best to you and yours.
We are suffering 42º, high winds, and raging bushfires in every state. Nothing to do with climate change hysteria, but due to only one thing. (I have been riding horses in the bush for over 30 years, 9 years as a volunteer bush fireman.) 25 Years of leftie; greenie; schizo bureaucrats disallowing permits to burn off the build-up of fuel on the ground, which we have been doing for 40,000 years (so our dear aboriginals say). So when the natural fire comes, and it does every 7 years, it has an enormous build-up of fuel, and thus it rages, with high intensity. It sends embers up into the heights, where the wind that the fire generates sends it to where the fire is not. And so it propagates itself.
I pray that 2020 is the year that the lefties; greenies; schizos consume themselves by way of their own created disasters.
I will answer in what i I believe is a logical sequence, not that in your post or my previous one.
> Those are not papers, but (AFAICS) explanations
Sorry. They ARE the titles of philosophical papers. Which I have read, and dealt with long ago. Hence my rant re philosophy.
But wait on. Some of us do think about such things (eg. Identity) deeply. Which is why the entire body of Western Thought (ie. pre-modern) is so important. And then we do not confect what we think Identity is from scratch, in isolation, limited by the content of a scrambled cranium, but we implement what we /know/ to be Identity in a computer.
> Those are not papers, but (AFAICS) explanations about the reasoning that
went behind the standards that were eventually published. Not mandatory
reading. Skip that if you wish.
Now corrected, I will read the links.
Something is not a standard just because it is published. All manner of pig poop is published. Some of it achieves the status of a convention. Some of it, eg. UML is heavily promoted and declared as a "standard" but has nothing of a Standard.
At best, this is a set of considerations that they request we make, when implementing a computer system that stores the subject matter.
> [various comments accepting primitive, sub-standard, broken methods as a "database"]
Look, by the Grace of God, in the 70's and 80's, I was a Lead s/w Engineer for Cincom, supplier of the then 5th largest (of five!) DBMS, TOTAL. Look me up on LinkedIn. My team wrote the second generation for minicomputers, then the first great threat to mainframes. 100% multi-threaded and full Transaction control. We had integrity in the first version, much more so in the second. Only Britton-Lee with their Database Machine, when they moved to Relational; SQL, and became Sybase, eclipsed us.
I left primarily because Cincom would not move to Relational. Again only through His Charity, I moved directly into high-end consulting for high-end customers. Meaning that I stayed in the high-end, rigid standards, absolutism about integrity and quality. With no knowledge or regard of what Date; Darwen; Fagin; et al were doing to damage the /Relational Model/, because I was implementing the /RM/ at that high level,and without any problem.
So in the 00's, when I started helping smaller shops with their D&D&F RFS labelled as "relational", it was more than a shock to find that the theoretical and applied theoretical world was already destroyed.
Likewise Bill Gates has a lot to answer for. In 1981 when the first PCs started coming out, we were up in arms about the PCs , that failed all the time, that hung up, that froze with the "blue screen of death" (then a black screen). It is still legal in Australia to return something that does not work, that is not fit for purpose. But people seldom do that for PCs, they have been programmed into accepting, and working with filth that passes for merchandise.
Not me. not my customers.
If we take life from the top, down (genuine authority; mainframe to min; standards; quality), we have had great systems since the 1960's, and ongoing. None of the problems that you enumerate, which are in reality far worse, and which you (devilishly) accept.
If we take it from the bottom, up (rebellion against authority; PCs; no standards; no quality), we have filth. The great unwashed masses love their great unwashed filth. All the problems you enumerate, and much worse. Simply accepted, no devil's advocate required.
In my 30 years (since I left Cincom) of delivering high-end databases, mostly to large Aussie banks, it has been a total top-down rewrite, a "Version 2", of their terribly broken, bottom-up, devoid-of-standards unwashed filth. The point is, the filth can be borne for a limited time only, and market forces will drive a move to higher levels systems. Either the corp disintegrates to dust, or it has to elevate its game.
Usually I rewrite on their current platform, their current h/w. Always I guarantee that the new system will be 10 times faster, and that any report can be serviced by a single SELECT command. That is totally foreign to them. In many cases they already have a heavy-duty reporting system such as BusinessObjects, which has a "universe" that describes the V1 "database", so that developers & users CAN write reports (they absolutely cannot otherwise). After the V2 system is implemented, they disconnect BO, and stop paying the mega-fees for annual maintenance. Because every report can be written directly from the Relational Database. Because it is Logical. Because the data model is a logic map. Because Codd used FOPC. Because I did as well. Because SQL is a proper implementation of FOPC; of Codd's RA; of Codd’s RM.
In reality, as distinct from the contractual guarantee, I deliver two orders of magnitude, and SELECTS that used to take tens of minutes, in milliseconds.
(The "theoreticians" complain that SQL is this and that, that it is "broken". SQL is never the problem. The data model or spaghetti model of the RFS is the problem, and then yes, any data sub-language would be "inadequate". In my three years hard labour at the TTM Gulag, Darwen would often present a problem, with the herald that "the RM is incomplete" or "Codd did not define" or "SQL is broken", and I would always, each and every time, give the pig poop eater a real Relational data model, which either eliminated the "problem", or provided the base from simple and straight-forward SQL, a single SELECT that produced the report that he alleged was "impossible".)
All of that is documented in TTM. (Includes me destroying the insane arguments that the TTM slaves slavishly erect. Straw Men orgies.)
Some of that is documented here on c.d.t.
There are other docs that I have given a better treatment to:
Here's one a friend of mine took up, but did not complete, or concede defeat:
(You can take up any of those here. Or privately. As declared in the header thread, failure to concede a point honourable constitutes concession of the point. If so, please open a new thread. This thread is Movie Identity.)
My projects include implementation of a great library system, competing with GEAC at the time. GEAC was a great system in the 80's. But sure, academics make a total mess of it. One of my college mates was an engineer at GEAC, before this deal, I was well versed in their offering. We competed for a contract with this system at Queens:
We stopped because the academics at the Queens library were idiots, there was no possibility of pleasing them. Here they have taken the world's best library system at the time, and implemented it their way, against the advice of GEAC, the supplier, and then they complain, falsely that the GEAC system was the problem. Er, their library system was broken, and they would not implement the changes that we at Cincom, or that GEAC required.
Academics love whatever they come up with, they hang on to the promise, in pathological denial of reality. Stonebraker invented the filth known as Ingres. It defecated on the users if more than five used the system. But it was highly praised by academia. Its bastard child, its resurrected ghost, is Postgres*NON*sql. It does not even remotely comply with SQL, but they will in their beloved Straw Man way, argue that SQL is broken. No, no, no. Pissgress is broken, it is not SQL. It has many cowbells and dog-whistles that assist an RFS (no assistance to an Rdb, because an Rdb has SQL), but none of the basics of SQL. The use of SQL in the label, and the slavish repetition on every manual page, is a total fraud. But hey, academics love it. It reminds them of their most famous idiot, Stonebraker. It gives them comfort that they too, can spend their entire academic life producing nothing that works, and filth that does not.
The worst thing in that category is, anything you write in pus-filled "sql", when you finally move to an SQL platform, has to be re-written, at the least. Every single line of code. But wait. Once you realise that you did have 42 work-arounds in your data model to cope with the pus-NONsql, you will rewrite the data model as well. I have assisted in scores of such ventures.
That is just about PusGrossNONsql vs SQL, that does not cover the other issues, such as No Server Architecture; No ACID Transactions; No possibility of concurrency. If you do not know what that is, have a look at this introductory level doc. For every instance of "Oracle", substitute "PissGrossNONsql".
Chase the links if you would like to know what a Server Architecture actually is, what we have had in the real world (as distinct from the academic fantasy world) since 1981. This is why I know, before the fact, that my V2 database will run on the existing customer h/w, at 10 times the speed of the V1.
Then look at the thousands of concurrency problems about the pig poop on help sites such as StackOverflow.
Of course, every crime is one of omission as well as one of commission, They have to pathologically deny what SQL really is, in order to elevate their pig poop as "sql'. And don't forget, that same pathology, the denial of the Four Laws of Thought, allow them to bask in the Excluded Middle, denying resolution. They genuflect to the ghost of Stonebraker, they suppress Codd, and elevate the insanity of Date; Darwen; Fagin; et al. They love the fact that they are four decades removed from the real world. They sacrifice their daughters to the god of Open Scourge. As if the contents of 10,000 crania spread across the world, and each nicely scrambled, ignorant of what a server is, what integrity is, can ever have the integrity that is naturally present in any single undamaged cranium.
The Kool Aid is Pig Poop. The source is Date; Darwen; Fagin; et al. Distilled and matured in large intestines of friendly sows. Very very friendly.
In this field, database science, there is not a single theoretician or "theoretician" since Codd that serves the industry. The mountain of evidence is, the commercial suppliers drive the industry, and they employ great theoreticians. And a few great Applied Scientists who implement systems.
Therefore, if you would like to engage because you would like to know what actual Authority; Standards; Codd (RM & Twelve Rules only); genuine SQL; high-end customers have been doing for four decades, while academia has been hyper-ventilating about, and engorging themselves with, each others backsides, we have a chance of having a meaningful discussion. Specifically, you will gain something.
But if you want to remain solidly in that bottomed-out position that academia is, by virtue of the mountain of evidence, and merely argue (devil's advocate or not) with the high-end real-world implementations That Do Not Break, that are unknown to academia FOR FORTY YEARS (fifty re the RM), if you are attached to the world where the minimum is good enough, spaghetti for logic; then no, we are not going to get anywhere. Specifically, you will gain nothing. Only frustration, because the attempted re-inforcement of the slavish arguments will fail to find the re-inforcement that is sought.
I an a technician, I have no sales skills at all. I cannot sell you up from that position. People seek me, I don't seek them. Because they have had a gutful of the pain they are suffering, and because they have identified that my systems have zero pain. And not before. So take it, that if you are not in enough intellectual pain, psychological pain, if you have not identified that the mountain you are standing in is made of pig shit, if your pain is not enough to drive you to seek freedom from it, you might not have much of a chance at grasping the concepts and standards that the painless enjoy, and have enjoyed for forty years.
I am not saying that you have to drop everything that has sustained you in your career before you can have a chance to attach yourself to the real world. That is true, because all academics in this field are addicted to the mountain of academic pig poop, exactly the same way a drug addict is. But that is not the condition I am declaring. I am saying you must have some serious pain, caused by the natural revulsion at the sophistry that passes for "logic", the foul odour of the mountain you are standing in, to move away from it.
> > Are you saying that you gain anything from surrogates, that if
> > surrogates were used
> > - there will never be more than 1 movie with the "value of the chosen
> > AK [Relational Key]
> > - there will never be an attribute value that does not existent
> > ?
> No and no.
> What do you gain you ask? (Recall that I'm playing the
> devil's advocate here)
Otherwise known as throwing up the slavish arguments that constutute the “academic” “literature”.
> I'd say you gain simplicity and flexibility. If
> I define Work(WorkID), then I can link all the properties I need to any
> work, e.g., Title(WorkID, Title, Language, Type). I don't have to decide
> in advance whether there will ever be a movie with two distribution
> titles in the same language: my framework can accommodate that. Do
> I have record data about a movie with no title? No problem. And so on.
Oh come on. That is the most unscientific drivel that I have heard in a long time. You are a scientist. Why don't you observe that that is a moving, shifting anti-framework, that frames nothing. Why don't you observe that if you (personally, because you are a scientist) apply a little bit of science, all that can be replaced with an Entity-Attribute-Value set of files. Much cheaper. No need to even name anything, let the users name and number their things, according to whatever they define their things to be. Set up just four files in your RFS ”database":
- AttributeChar & Value
- AttributeNumeric & Value
- AttributeText & Value
There, done, they have a system that will serve every single one of their needs, even needs they have not dreamt of yet. Until they die. Or until they kill you.
Now you are free. Go and do something worthwhile with your precious life.
> I'd say you gain simplicity and flexibility
No. That is not simplicity. Stop lying to yourself. That is ignoring the science that produces simplicity, and shifting the responsibility back to the user. That system is, in scientific fact, complexity fraudulently claimed to be "simplicity". What you gain is abject abdication of responsibility, same as the other theoreticians', the other "academics" in this field. it gives you the freedom to now write yet another paper about what could work if a certain fantasy were "true". Same as the fifty-year-old men who claim that they would be happy only if they were /inside/ a five-year-old girls body. There is a clinical word for that, and it is not "scientist" or "academic" or "theoretician".
Simplicity derives from using more than one Standard, more than one science, that together are plaited; braided; inter-woven, that can be used precisely because that are all compliant with higher order truth.
Eg. FOPC-> RM-> Relational data model.
Eg. FOPC-> Predicate -> Relational data model -> Validation
Pre-modern science, /scientiam/, means KNOWLEDGE, specifically knowledge of truth. All science is Integrated, because all truth is Integrated.
Post-modern "science" is speculation claimed to be "knowledge", an ever-changing morass of filth, and that can only be contemplated after denial of science.
Science is not knowledge of fragments that exist in isolation, floating in space, with contrived relations, that require massive doses of insanity or good drugs to see. The science is Integrity, something totally foreign to the pig poop eaters that pass for "theoreticians" in this space, whose mountain of pseudo-science is ever-changing pig poop.
Truth, and only truth, is simplicity.
The task of science is to determine that truth. What you are doing (devil or not) is anti-science, abdicating your responsibility, and claiming the "simplicity" that you would have had if you had been a responsible scientist.
> Is there a chance that I will insert data about a movie into
> the database n times? Sure, but eventually someone will discover the
> duplication and merge the data. Think as an archivist: it's better to
> have more copies of the same thing than none at all. My count of movies
> will be slightly off, but it will improve with time.
That is the same argument that the poor old Jew in the ghetto uses, to sell copper as gold.
Science, Logic: Pig poop cannot “improve” over time or millennia. A reptile cannot “evolve” into a mammal. An ape cannot “evolve” into a human. A higher-order creature can deteriorate into the behaviour of a lower-order creature (but it remains the original creature), but a lower-order creature cannot “evolve” to a higher-order creature. The notion is idiotic, but sold on every propaganda channel. Think science. Think DNA. Think number of chromosome pairs in each species. Think gene editing.
No. If the defining order was pig poop, it can never be anything but pig poop, all fantasies to the contrary. Yes, every cripple, every retard, fancies themselves to be the next Einstein.
> Think as an archivist
I have, and I am. I have worked with real library systems (that do not break, that are still running 30 years later). In case you do not know, you can run a GEAC or OpenVMS system today, even though the hardware has not been manufactured for 30 years, on virtual machines that provide GEAC/OS or OpenVMS as THE platform. "Don't fix what ain't broken".
I have completed projects at the Dept of Minerals & Energy. Think full 3D geographic locations; channel definition, for mining operations, for licensing purposes (there had better not be any conflicts, or even liabilities that stem from mine shafts that are too close together, or too close to water channels, or too expensive to be commercial. An ancient GEAC system plus my Relational database to provide all the modern expectations, on Unix/Sybase. At a fraction of the price after they threw the multi-million dollar supplier out, specifically for promising like you, and delivering like you can, a piece of pig poop with no integrity. (Unfortunately I bid a six figure price, I did not know at the time that the previous supplier bid a seven figure price.) The system is still running today, GEAC over 30 years old and defunct, mine over 20 years old and never needing maintenance.
You are using the word "archivist" or "librarian", but you mean an imbecile who does not know the slightest thing about archival or libraries. You are happy with a "computer system" and a RFS fraudulently claimed as "database" (let alone Relational). As long as you seek employment from one-man companies, and the insecurity of such positions, which you are very very familiar with anyway, that will be fine.
If ever you get out of the garage and smelled the roses, if ever you seek employment in the real world, you might find that before you make hysterical claims about what you know about "archival", you will have to get formal education, and a certificate and everything. (And that cannot be obtained from FIAF or FilmStandards.org.)
Nah, you are not thinking archivist, you are not thinking responsible scientist who delivers science such that the system is simple for the archivist. You are thinking cheapest bang for the buck, never see him again, simplest way to get a firetruck at the brothel (the sick ones are really cheap) and a feed at the Porcine Excreta Diner tonight, the hell with tomorrow, you won’t be around when he finds out you defrauded him.
Copper for gold.
> Is there a chance that I will insert contradictory data (e.g., the fact
> that a movie has no title, and its title)? Sure, but that means that
> there is conflicting information about a movie in the real world, which
> must be resolved. In the meantime, I have a place to record such data,
> so it doesn't get lost.
Get serious. It is lost already. You don't have a name by which you can find it (and you stopped writing ID numbers on a piece of paper five years ago).
Get serious. There is no conflicting info in the real world (it conforms to the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of the Excluded Middle). If there is, that proves you simply have not figured it out, you are simply not ready to enter anything authoritative into a computer registry (you can, into a mickey mouse RFS).
Get serious, the whole movie industry, in all countries, is run by Jews. The material goal (let's not discuss the formal goal) is about money; money; and nothing but money. They make sure that there are no conflicts about their money; money; money. Same with the Chinamen.
Get serious. There is no such thing as a movie without a title. (There is such a thing as a "working title".) Because in Reality, there is no entity without an identity.
> Of course, I will end up with a spaghetti model,
Minus the meatballs.
> essentially what
> "linked data models" look like.
What scientists call pig poop.
> But I can organize it using an
Sure. Yet another substantial labour that I do not have to do. Because my Ontology is already in, is fully integrated with, the Relational data model. Same as not needing a massive BusinessObjects "Universe".
> which will put every piece of data within a well defined
False. You (and FIAF; etc, the “theoreticians”; et al) have no clue what Hierarchy means. The notion of Hierarchy has been, and continues to be suppressed in post-modern education; speech; "academic" papers; "literature"; every single propaganda channel; etc. Ever since the French Destruction, the unnatural notion of "equality" has been elevated, and the natural hierarchies have been suppressed. You are at the end of centuries of that suppression, the actual hierarchies are totally invisible to you, an inculcated blindness, demanded in order to foster the unnatural and destructive "eek-wally-tee". (Wally is Aussie slang for idiot.)
What you do have, is a fixed and meaningless (not "defined" in intellectual terms, but specified in physical-only terms) list. Look up Nested Sets; Adjacency Lists, beloved of imbeciles such as Date and Celko. The "definition" one has when one has no clue what definition is.
There are THREE types of genuine Hierarchies, which are inherent (yes, inherent) in the Relational Model. In the fifty years since Codd, not a single "theoretician" has defined or articulated them. Proved it is, that that is not known to you, by the fact that you are pushing linked lists of physical IDs as "hierarchies".
> > This, after accepting that with surrogates you "trade off integrity".
> > I don't understand. If you are willing to "trade off integrity" with
> > a surrogate framework (it cannot be called "model"), on what basis,
> > from what ground, are you attacking a Relational data model, that has
> > generations of data integrity (more than the "theoreticians" have
> > identified) that the surrogate framework does not have, that might
> > have [you say you can prove] this or that fault.
Ok, before we get into the next point. As defined in the header thread, by definition, you have conceded that you are a flaming hypocrite (with or without the devil assisting you).
Conceded also. You can prove nothing about what you say you can prove. If you could, this would be the point at which delivery of alleged proof is begged. That point has now passed.
Ok, so now your new position is, since you (your anti-model) have no integrity, integrity is not important. Now that the Jew has been proved a fraud, that the gold is copper has been exposed, he is saying the gold is not important.
We should make a movie about this. Harvey Feldman. Bernie Goldstein. Einstein could play a cameo role, especially if we keep Poincaré and the Scientists out of the picture. Let's call it a collaborative Work. You and me and no-one else, 50-50. I'll write up the concept. Working title is, wait for it, /Copper for Gold, and the Pigs are Free/. (If that is foreign to you, look up the song by Dire Straits.) And it exists as a Work without a creator or creators. Quick, you need an ID for that.
> Is data integrity so fundamental, or even a priority, in this context?
No, not in your contrived context.
Absolutely, in the real world. Anyone suggesting otherwise classifies himself as unqualified for the job. Let me assure you, at the banks, I have witnessed or participated in instances where we phoned security and Human Resources, and had the termination cheque ready before the speaker had finished his presentation. There is a certain way that we warn each other that a person is strolling into termination territory, to STFU, by waving our security pass quietly.
The point is, even in corps that have less concern about integrity and security, such a statement or implication seriously damages the speaker’s credibility. Unrecoverable.
> Cataloguers and archivists'
In your contrived multiverse
> main priority is to amass as much
> information as possible.
Perfect, for the unwashed, the contrived garage "archivists", who think that mountains of form-less matter has value. Like a 500 page thesis that says nothing.
Pig poop, for the real world cataloguers and archivists who are qualified (certified), who understand that Matter is irrelevant, especially the volume, that Form (what you intellectually know about the matter; how the matter is intellectually organised) is relevant. Especially when finding anything in the archive. The same day as the request.
> They are used to work with mess (I heard some
> of them literally say that they "love working with XML"). Let's care
> about getting things "in"; somehow,
Sounds like the drunk at the brothel on a Saturday night. And the 15 mins is coming to a close. He can't get it up, but he insists on getting it in. The girls must love clients like that.
> somehow, we will find a way (even if
> complicated) to get things "out".
The adorable "logic" of the insane. Great hilarity for a New Years Day, thank you. You can't get it in; you can't find it after you get it in; but you promise you can get it out. Despite the duplicates and the mis-attributions and the registration of things that are not real. Truly. Oh yeah, and despite having proved all that, you promise that you are capable of thought, and even "complicated" thought when called for.
> A properly designed Relational Model
> would put too many constraints on what gets "in", although I must admit
> that it would be somewhat easier to get the right things "out".
That first part is a Straw Man argument. You have framed what it really is, as something that it is not. And then you have attacked the frame that you created. Congratulations, you win at destroying the nonsense that you created, I did not need to lift a finger. Great, what it really is has not been affected.
A properly designed Relational data model has many constraints, yes. A mature RDM has twice as many constraints on the same number of tables. Constraints of the type that are unknown to you and the "theoreticians" here. They deliver, and enforce, Integrity. Undamaged humans love Integrity. Dis-integration is virtually the definition of criminality, of insanity. But they are invisible to the user, the constraints or their number is not known, they do not know that it is especially hard to get things in, they only know:
- that it is natural (in nature, only hard things get in);
- that it is integrated with all the relevant science (truths about the profession of librarian or archivist) that they know
- that it does not contradict science or reality
- that it is therefore simple.
> (End of playing the devil's advocate)
The devil has no chance at all, against one who loves the Truth.
> > "Academics" ...
> > They have even destroyed the definition of /ontology/ in their
> > pathetic war against God, so as to make being-ness unimportant and
> > their phantasmagorical non-being relevant. Why, now we have multiple
> > "ontologies", one per library or dataset. And "description logics".
> > Hysterical.
> (Playing the devil's advocate again)
God help me.
> Ontologies help us clarify concepts and classify things.
No they do not. Ontology means one thing, and one thing only, for 2,000 years.
Your (and their) "ontology" is quite a different thing, contrived; man-made (actually damaged-man-made); confected. Using the label "ontology" is a gross fraud, which gives it a respectability that it has not, and it suppresses the real ontology. For those sins, you (as devil's advocate) will burn in hell, for eternity.
Let me say, I am currently assisting a PhD in AI. She sought me through a common network, precisely because they told her that I can help her with the "ontologies" and "descwiption logics" that were slowly exploding her head. Believe me, I do not go around looking for people whose brains I can unscramble. I am straightening that head out, but it will take a year or three. I can't give her any of my proprietary work, even under NDA, because she has Chinese agents in her University and in her company, but as I do for many others, I am happy to give her everything else. Point is, I have studied a few of them, and in each case, vomited.
Now, about that freaky thing that you fraudulently call "ontology". It is a pathetic, after-the fact, post-mortem, fragmented (even the best), disjointed, and very limited definition of concepts. Even the concepts of the concepts are fragmented and limited, usually to the level of the one and only fragmented designer. And so bad that no one else can modify or enhance it. Pig poop tastes the same even if honey is taken with it.
Oh, but an "academic" with a PhD wrote an "academic paper" defining anti-logical "ontologies". And oh, all "academics" have to protect and contrive to elevate other "academics" due to their fragility of mind. So hackerdemics all over the contrived world (they exist with total detachment from the real world) now dive into the hysteria and write "ontologies" for their beloved RFS.
Recall that every crime is two-fold. So the only way that this sort of pig poop can be elevated to "academic" matter, that can end up being used as a "definition of concepts", is the ALL the "theoreticians" involved, every single one, is totally ignorant of FOPC. Of the fact that anything and everything in the universe (the real one, not the fragmented subjective "reality" of the insane) can be defined in FOPC Predicates. That everything in a Relational database is a definition in terms of FOPC Predicates. That if their pig poop were defined in Relational terms, their hysterical "ontology" would be redundant; superfluous; idiotic.
Recall that a Relational database does not need a massive additional definition for a reporting, such as six-figure BusinessObjects. Because it is already logically defined, and logically reportable. $500 per seat instead of six figures. Any user can write a report instead of only those who took the expensive (again) BO course. But a massive BO Universe is very very necessary for an RFS. It is the same thing with onto-ANTI-logies. Totally irrelevant for RDBs. Massively necessary for RFSs. And unchangeable.
> Description logics allow us to perform inferences
> (even reason about contradictory data), which SQL cannot.
It has nothing to do with SQL, fool. Trying to get SQL to get something out of an anti-relational morass of pig poop is stupid. And you cannot blame SQL for that. SQL is logical, based on FOPC and Cod''s RA. Getting anything out of a database that conforms to the RM, which implies conformance to FOPC, is dead easy. I challenged the great god of pig poop himself, Hugh Darwen. Much as he tried, there was not one thing in three whole years that he could come up with.
Go for it, give me anything that "cannot be done in SQL". I will give you this whole year. If I supply SQL to solve the problem, it will prove that you are ignorant of SQL. If I give you the Relational model that solves the problem (because that and not SQL, is the sea of the problem), it will prove that you are ignorant of the RM and how to use it. Real world problems only, the more complex the better. No problems from the realm of fantasy, they need a different form of treatment.
"Description logics" is not logic. there is one, and only one Logic (the mechanism of the intellect is Logic). The label is fraudulent. Again, because it demeans logic, and elevates pig poop to "logic". Again, while Logic (FOPC, Predicates, the RM) are inherent in a Relational database, and thus give us all the inferences that do exist over the data in it, therefore "description logics" is irrelevant; superfluous; imbecilic.
Oh, but an "academic" with a PhD wrote an "academic paper" defining anti-logical "description logics". And oh, all "academics" have to protect and contrive to elevate other "academics" due to their fragility of mind. So hackerdemics all over the contrived world (they exist with total detachment from the real world) now dive into the hysteria and write anti-logical "description logics" for their beloved anti-logical RFS. It is insanity squared. And institutionalised. They have turned universities into asylums.
The growth of such insanity is directly related to the growth of cancer. After one hundred years of incubation, and linear growth, around 1970 the growth progressed to exponential. All universities in the occupied countries are heavily infected. The kids are deemed terminal before they walk in, before they pay their registration fees. Suicide is the new norm, and self murder is now legalised. The gravity of this is denied.
> (even reason about contradictory data),
I vomited twice already, I don't know if I can handle another one on this first day of the year.
A different point about that hysteria. First, nothing contradictory exists in the real world. Second, the Laws of Thought demand that any contradiction that may be /perceived/ be resolved. Therefore there is nothing that is in the data, or in the Relational (logical) database that is contradictory. So the anti-logical "description pig poop logicks" again, do nothing for undamaged humans.
But wait. In the anti-logical RFS, or the anti-logical data model that the anti-logical "academick" "defines", lo and behold, there is contradiction. And wait, wait. He has a "reason" or bunch of spaghetti "reasonings" that "reason" about the anti-reason contradiction. One cannot reason the unreasonable. That is why the Laws of Thought come first, are fundamental, to reason. Anything outside the laws, IS NOT REASON. And REASON cannot be had over matter that is NON-REASON.
Oh, but an "academic" with a PhD wrote an "academic paper" defining anti-logical, anti-reason "reasoning for anti-reason contradictions". And so on and so forth.
To those of us who have not been indoctrinated in pig poop, whose crania are still unscrambled, that is third generation anti-logic. Or anti-logic cubed. We do not allow contradiction in our data models, long before they become databases. We do not need the masses of third generation insanity because we stopped the first generation of madness from taking root.
I will take it that at this point, you have ended your role as Satan's offspring.
> > Can there be a Work without a creator (author; writer; conceptualiser;
> > or whatever) ?
Then stop !
Realise the concept of defining a Work (creature) without having defined the Creator, which the Work is existentially Dependent upon, is hysterically stupid. You are no longer Moloch's child, I do not have a game that I have to play. They are, as evidenced, drooling imbeciles. You are not. All their inferences and speculations are based on that beginning premise which is therefore their first principle, all of it is based on drool. Pig poop. Academically validated pig poop. Now drag your humanity together from wherever it has been seduced to not-function, grab a espresso, and start thinking. Natural, non-contradictory thinking that conforms to the Four Laws of Thought. Do not join, or rely upon, those who lie swooning in pig poop.
Aristotle teaches us that:
//the least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold ... a principle is great, rather in power, than in extent; hence that which was small [mistake] at the start turns out a giant [mistake] at the end.//
Paraphrased as, a small mistake at the beginning (eg. principles; definitions) turns out to be a large mistake at the end.
Forget FIAF and their drooling "definition" of the problem, or their myriad problems. Define the problem yourself, as a human being. To me as a human being. If the data exists in the real world, there is no problem at all to define it (FOPC; RM; RDM). In the real world, a Work is existentially Dependent on its Creator (that could be plural, a collaboration, no problem).
> but it's not unreasonable to imagine that in some cases the creator
> may not be known.
Send the drooling idiot home. Inform him that the database is for registration purposes, that the Works (and derivatives) are assets, legal assets, that represent Value. Money; money; money, in an industry that is all about money; money; money. So a real world movie cataloguing system does have basic legal requirements to ensure they do not get sued, and that people (droolers and others) are not permitted to commit fraud that can be prevented. Failure to do so is legal Negligence. In Australia there is no legal defence for Negligence. They need certain specific info to be documented, before a thing can be registered. Such systems are SIMPLE to use, and the users can make claims or disallow invalid actions on the basis or truth, legally defensible truth from the real world. So tell the person attempting an incomplete registration to fly two kites in opposite directions, and to come back if and when he has one kite that still flies.
There are no nulls in a Relational database. Don't you dare start yet another anti-logical "three-valued logics" argument. I have closed that already on c.d.t.
> Not thinking about feature movies, of course, but
> obscure films or tapes found in the deep of some store-house. Same as
> every other form of art (think paintings by unknown author);
Well, those things get catalogued by the facts that are known. The facts include ownership but not Creator; content but not intent; etc. Possibly heavy detail at the Item level, but the Work is Unknown. If and when the stored attributes match up with other Works; Manifestations; etc, the Item can be better Identified. If not, it remains in the [real world] status in which it was found: a mess of unknown stuff found in a un-catalogued facility.
In that case, if there were a real owner who is not the elderly woman who claimed ownership, with the media hype, he will come to know about his piece of artwork, and he can now sue to recover it.
Or if it has been mis-attributed, now it can be correctly attributed. $26M might end up being $20K.
That is the power of a genuine catalogue, as used by an undamaged human. That cannot be obtained from and RFS, plus an anti-logical "ontology" layer, plus an anti-logical "description logics" layer, plus an anti-logical "artificial intelligence" [yet another misrepresentation] layer. Like handing over $5 in real cash in one second vs one year of mining a cryptocurrency.
> difference, though, is that a movie typically has no single creator, but
> rather a group of people with distinct roles (writer, screenwriter,
> director, etc.). Not sure whether you may attribute a movie to a single
> principal creator.
Author: I don't. They call it Agent. It can be a single person, or a corporation, or a collective of persons.
Cast: They have specific roles for each member of the cast. Minus the drug suppliers are the whores. For some reason, they never get credited.
The best to you and yours