I'm with Dave here. Early on we created a patent database at Xerox. Luckily, King Codd did not hold sway. Instead, a "document search system" was used which had more knowledge of semantics/language than it did of structure and relationships.
This was a huge win. It did run into the problem of categorization .. building a sort of formal set of tags like a card catalog. That was OK but basically was never used by researchers who much preferred a language based system .. i.e. like google search. The classification system was eventually minimized, and the language search improved. I used to make bets with the folks trying to migrate the patent database to relational: Give me a one-paragraph description on how to convert to first-normal form, the purist, most factored form. First normal form (1NF) is a property of a relation in a relational database. A relation is in first normal form if and only if the domain of each attribute contains only atomic (indivisible) values, and the value of each attribute contains only a single value from that domain. The other bet was: show me any database in the company that doesn't cheat on its schema using "stored functions". I never lost. Historically, RDB's are dying, simply because that are too rigid to evolve into fragmented, globally distributed, highly replicated file systems. Flat is Back. -- Owen On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> wrote: > Gravel has fractured faces and is complex. It certainly does not move > freely between units. It is used just for the opposite property. Pebbles > are rounded move more freely. > > (If you want to split hairs, I can do that too.) > > > > The point is that billions of A, G, C, and Ts, do not directly create > information about why one person will be Usain Bolt and another will be > Amadeus Mozart, or how certain immunotherapy tactics will work with one > person or not another. If you want to think about organic molecules, > don’t think about dance partners. Get an organic chemistry textbook and a > molecular dynamics code and *check* to see if a metaphor even is in the > right ballpark. > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Nick > Thompson > *Sent:* Sunday, September 11, 2016 8:41 AM > *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] speaking of analytics - data mining > > > > Marcus, > > > > Now here, I would argue that gravel is a very bad metaphor for base > pairs. The salient properties of the elements of gravel is that the > particles are more or less uniform in shape free to move with respect to > one another , and not easily compressed and broken. Base pairs are of > significantly different shapes, bind together importantly with each other > and other substances, do not move freely with respect to one another, and > can readily be crushed and broken. So, the argument would run, thinking of > base pairs as gravel will lead to more errors than thinking of them as, > say, dance partners in an elaborate contra-dance. > > > > Nick . > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels > *Sent:* Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:33 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] speaking of analytics - data mining > > > > > > In anguish, the people invented an entire new profession - Data Mining - > that essentially 'crushed' the data stores creating gravel composed of > individual datums and put the result in a different, more malleable matrix > — live gravel in cement and sand and water (before the matrix dries). From > this new medium the people would pluck bits of gravel and place them next > to each other an proclaim, "Look! Information!" > > > > That’s a funny story, but it overlooks the fact that sometimes all there > is, is bits of gravel. Like 3 billion base pairs of the human genome. > There’s no “teenage clerk” that has looked at most of it in detail or has > much of any intuition about what it does. Similarly, there’s no Rosetta > stone for the nuances of why different whale species vocalize one way or > another. It’s just a process of throwing ideas against the wall and see if > they stick. Computers can do that more rapidly than humans can, at > least. Data mining isn’t just for developers in industry that can’t figure > out how to decompose tables or make indices. > > > > There are many approaches to modeling information, database normalization > is one of many. Information and category theory contribute other > approaches. > > > > Marcus > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
