Re: Knowledge Databases LO1976

Jim Michmerhuizen (jamzen@world.std.com)
Thu, 6 Jul 1995 21:20:26 +0059 (EDT)

Replying to LO1935 --

On Wed, 5 Jul 1995, John O'Neill wrote:
[ but I think I got my levels of reference mixed up. I'm pretty sure
I'm replying to the same LO1927 that O'Neill was... ]

> Replying to LO1927 --

> represent these integrated interconnected patterns through such constructs
> as networks of connected acyclical graphs. In doing so it would be

Why do you see them as acyclical? What difference does it make?

> >In Jim Michmerhuizen's reply (Knowledge Databases LO1903) he pointed out
> that there are deep logical incoherencies in the notion of using current
> [relational] database technology to support a "knowledge" database and
> that it is logically impossible, in such a structure, to represent
> emergent knowledge. I whole heartedly agree, but it is my suspicion that
> a hybrid of object orientated representation and context sensitive
> predictive agents could.

Yeah: that's the conclusion that's supposed to sort of fall out of my
negative statements about relational databases.

Look, if we're talking about representing "emergent" knowledge, then the
knowledge that's "in there" will not have been put there by any single
person who recognized it as knowledge. If it were, it wouldn't be
emergent. It would be just plain old ordinary knowledge like my telephone
book.

--

Regards Jim Michmerhuizen web residence at http://world.std.com/~jamzen/ ........................................................................... . . . . There are far *fewer* things in heaven and earth, Horatio, . . . . . . . . . than are dreamt of in your philosophy... . . | _ .