Rich, Doug, and Pavithra, (01)
I agree with Doug's response. (02)
The mathematics of converting a database to or from a DAG or
a collection of tables is just simple math. You can't read
any kind of metaphysics or other speculation into it. (03)
>> > A DAG is the normal, prototypical situation of databases then.
> It depends what the database is about, whether it expresses a DAG or
> not. A database of vendors and customers could certainly have cycles.
> Note that a graph of a single relation, whether tree, forest, DAG, or
> cyclic, does not imply that the relation is transitive.
>> > That
>> > constraint means that there is an ordering of the <relation>s on one axis
>> > and the <person/object/thing>s on another which would look like a
>> > topographic map of a square of land.
> Even in the case of a DAG, there is only necessarily a partial ordering.
>> > Specifically, the ordering of
>> > <relation>s by identifier associated with the temporal arrival sequence of
> The partial ordering would depend on the data, not on the temporal arrival
>> > the relation references in a <text/ontology/dictionary/lexicon> in
>> > ascending
>> > order by arrival, mapped against an ordering of <person/object/thing>s in
>> > ascending order of their own arrival.
> Note that a <person/object/thing> can arrive multiple times for many
>> > This is the structure of a single
>> > pass analysis from beginning to end of the model.
>> > Is that intuition correct?
> It seems not.
> -- doug foxvog
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)