[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Prospects made into Customers and Vice Versa

To: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Thomas Johnston <tmj44p@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 05:03:22 +0000 (UTC)
Message-id: <340233422.4420195.1446008602914.JavaMail.yahoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Yes. I was referring to valid time and transaction time. 

And these concepts I do claim to know quite a good bit about. Bitemporal data is analyzed in detail in both of my books, (i) Managing Time in Relational Databases, and (ii) Bitemporal Data: Theory and Practice. In addition, I, together with the co-author of my first book, hold two issued patents on bitemporal data which fully support the bitemporal standards, and which describe important additional temporal functionality lacking in those standards and not described elsewhere in the literature.

Of my first book, Rick Snodgrass, arguably the leading researcher in bitemporal theory, said: "The authors present an original and comprehensive conceptual approach ... which includes support for bitemporality and is a significant advance in the theory and practice of managing time-varying data".

<<<That sounds like the distinction between vlaid and transaction time(?). To properly model this requires having a more nuanced model of time.>>>

I hope I'm not being taken to task for not articulating "a more nuanced model of time" in these forum conversational threads. 

On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 6:21 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 27, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Thomas Johnston <tmj44p@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Response to Pat's Comment
> Are there time-varying sets, in the sense of sets whose membership varies over time? Of course not. And so, although I never said that the term "time-varying set" referred to the notion of a set whose membership varied over time, it is certainly easy to read the term that way. So I spoke carelessly, and I apologize for that.
> I seem to recall adopting the term "time-varying set" from Chris Date. That doesn't legitimate the term, but it may explain why it came to mind as I wrote my comment. And the fact that an important author in the field of relational databases also uses the term suggests that there is something that he, like I, think that the term might usefully be referring to.
> In my case, as indicated in my reply to John Sowa in this same thread, I think the term is a reasonable one to be used to refer to a specific temporal sequence of sets. The idea is that each transformation of (update to) a relational table puts that table in a new state; and it is each of those states that is a set, and the temporal sequence of those sets that I used the term "time-varying set" to refer to.
> I expressed this idea much more clearly in my reply to John Sowa in this thread, written at close to the same time as my reply to Pat. Here's a summary statement of what I said:
> (i) A table in a relational database is a time-varying object.
> (ii) A transformation to the contents of a table (i.e. an insert, update or delete) replaces the current state of the table with a different state.
> (iii) Each of those states is a set – specifically a subset of the Cartesian Product of the ordered set of sets which makes up the columns of the table.
> (iv) At any point in time in the life-history of a table, it is in one and only one state; it physically realizes one and only one set.
> (v) The temporally-ordered sequence of those states, then, constitutes the life-history of that table. (This temporally-ordered sequence is not itself a set, because the same set may occur in the sequence at multiple non-contiguous periods of time.)

Does each state have an associated time (perhaps a time-interval)? If so, it would be both more natural and more useful to model this mathematically as a function from times to sets (=states). And, just as an aside, are you sure that a state of a table really is something as simple as a set?

> (vi) I used the name "time-varying set" to refer to that temporal sequence of sets.

It would be much simpler if you didn't, though :-)

> (vii) What relates the sets in each of these "time-varying sets"? If we use the Principle of Extension, I don't see a straightforward answer to the question. But if we use the Principle of Abstraction, the answer is that the sets in a "time-varying set" are related by having (a) the same universe of discourse

Sets don't have universes of discourse: that notion arises in giving a semantics to a language (hence "discourse"). Do you mean, they are all subsets of a (large) set of possible values, like the domain and range of a function?

> , and (b) the same "predicate" (as Stoll puts it), or "set membership criterion" as I would prefer to put it.

Well now, that can't be correct, because if they had the same membership criterion then they would be the same set. You must be referring to something else, and it would be very helpful to know what it is. Can you give an example?

I will make a guess, but forgive me if I get this wrong. There are individuals whose properties may vary with time. Let us write this using the convention that P(x, t) means that x has property P at time t. The (a?) "varying set" associated with P is the (a?) function S from times to sets such that for all t, S(t) is (a subset of?) {x: P(x, t)} . Is that more or less right?

> As an aside I also note (since this topic is one I have worked on for a long time), that the standard (ISO 9075:2011 and/or TSQL2) theories of bitemporal data include the notion that there are two "time-varying sets" (in this sense) corresponding to each table, one tracking the temporally-ordered change of state of the objects represented by rows in each table, and the other tracking the temporally-ordered change of state of each table itself.

That sounds like the distinction between vlaid and transaction time(?). To properly model this requires having a more nuanced model of time.


> With this interpretation of the phrase "time-varying set", and with relational database tables being the original topic under discussion, my original point can be rephrased like this: a relational table is a "time-varying set" (i.e. a temporal sequence) of table states, each state being a specific collection of rows. By the Principle of Abstraction, what each of those states has in common is that they are defined on the same universe of discourse (a Cartesian Product of sets) and use the same set membership criterion.
> And I once again apologize for using a term which originally seemed innocuous enough, but which I now realize is more naturally understood the way Pat understood it – as an oxymoron. I will henceforth try to use some such term as "temporal sequence of table states (sets)".


IHMC                                    (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416  office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440  fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667  mobile (preferred)
phayes@xxxxxxx      http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>