Bob, That is a neat association/relationship sketch. Thanks for sharing it and the link to your research site.
Regards, Hans On Saturday, December 5, 2020 at 8:21:04 PM UTC-5 [email protected] wrote: > Tones, > > your description of your hierarchy brought back to mind the PhD thesis > work I did on extending conventional data dictionaries to cater for > knowledge objects. I created a proof of concept using Hypercard, a > precursor of TW, using a data model similar to what you are describing. The > data model is > [image: Screen Shot 2020-12-06 at 12.15.20 pm.png] > > The dual associations between Entity Type and Allowed Relationship and > Entity and Relationship are to record the owner and member of a > relationship. The top three entities provide a model of the domain at a > conceptual level whilst instances are recorded in the bottom three > entities. Entries in the bottom three entities must conform to those > allowed, ie. those recorded in the top three entities. So, entities must be > of an allowed type. Relationships must be of an allowed type between > allowed entity types. Attributes must be of the allowed type for that > entity type. > > You can read some articles about the Knowledge Dictionary on my > ResearchGate account (researchgate.net) > > This discussion takes me back many years. Fascinating how things come > round again. > > bobj > > On Friday, 4 December 2020 at 13:31:19 UTC+11 TW Tones wrote: > >> Gentlemen, >> >> I just want to add if there has not being a database model before, >> tiddlywiki is an ideal platform to model any relationship. Of late I have >> endeavoured in any application to never compromise the ability to add an >> additional layer of organisation, an alternate view or a different >> simultaneous representation. An old line "not taking hostages of the >> future" my father quotes, is reinvented by me to "Not taking decisions >> that compromise the future" is an interesting approach on top of tiddlywiki >> especially when looking at alternate database or knowledge models. As one >> proceeds to "try different systems" on top of tiddlywiki we gain practical >> experience with a kind of meta database systems view. >> >> One Idea of my own that may be of interest, not withstanding Charlies >> love hate relationship with hierarchy ,is the following model I am keen to >> experiment with. >> >> - Every object is a tiddler >> - Every object is in a hierarchy, even if it begins with only one >> - Every attribute is a relationship to an object in another hierarchy >> - Hierarchies act as I kind of "fuzzy value" where with more >> information the hierarchies go deeper as they grow >> - When assigning an attribute a value you do so via a relationship to >> a hierarchy if you find it you use it, if not you add it, >> - If you do not have a detail ie it is coloured but no what color it >> is you point to an item in the color hierarchy such as color - or unknown >> colour. >> - Should you come across a database of colors you use it to populate >> the colour hierarchy, and where possible change items pointing into the >> hierarchy you move the relationship to a less fuzzy member of the >> hierarchy. >> - People, a group, a process can take charge of a hierarchy and do as >> they wish as long as the honour or improve the relationships already >> codified. >> >> Just some thoughts >> Tones >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/cfffd559-1bcc-479d-86c9-1ae8a336bee8n%40googlegroups.com.
