Hi:

The way our semantic system works is inherently different than the
traditional db/rdb. While dba's must define relationships and create
rows, columns, tables and fields (static), ours does not require the
implementation of these things to create dynamic relationships- we call
the semantic data structure, "dynamic" for this reason, amonst others.

From readers' opinions and comments, I am seeing that people are trying
to "normalize" our semantic structure into a rd model- which is really
not possible. I am speaking language of: "semantic data structure" and
we are not communicating. All Roads Lead to Rome, so if I can state or
demonstrate we arrive at the same place, then perhaps, I'm achieving
part of my goal for this post.

But I want to stress the structure I am discussing is as -or more-
useful in the same application space as the static traditonal one you
all use everyday. I need to prove that!

This system is built on a new model of human cognition and simulated
dual memory. A two column system only. When two column memory is
unified with underlying cognitive functionalities, innate logic occurrs-
just as in human brain. The two column memory contains a perceptual
(data) memory and a conceptual (metadata) memory- conscious and
subconscious, if you prefer. Multiple relations (one-to-many, many-to-
one and many-to-many) can be established between the elements of two
memories and when new data is introduced to existing ones ("is
learned"), it falls automatically ing into dynamic relationships with
existing data in memory. A Porsche is European, red, flashy, fast, high
speed, two seater... the new word Porsche is categorized right along
with existing data that has these same relationships and is categorized
in the same group as Ferrari, Lamborghini, BMW and so on. It is NOT
categorized with Mustang, GTO, Accura, Toyota or Corvette because it is
not related with "European". You KNOW the difference! Thus, we also
achieve auto-categorization and specificity in retrieval. What is
"innate human logic" in terms of semantic data structure? It is the
same functionality which allows us to establish logical dynamic
relationships amongst the data we learn everyday. Also to retrieve
knowledge with 100% accuracy. Further, it provides contextual
disambiguation, and provides universal grammar.

What I am trying to understand is if what I am claiming about the
semantic data structure makes any sense to any db experts. I guess I'm
talking a different language... Would love to find a common road to
get to Rome.

I'd be happy to send more information by email to anyone that might have
a deeper interest. I've attached another document discussing how we may
utilize this structure as a next gen semantic web architecture.

Thanks again!

Wick


--
Posted via http://dbforums.com

Innate human memory provides 100% accurate knowledge retrieval?!? plonk

"Wick" <member37571 (AT) dbforums (DOT) com> wrote

"Wick" <member37571 (AT) dbforums (DOT) com> wrote

In general, we c.d.t people consider the semantics to live in the
"rows, columns" etc. and the definitions thereof that you dismiss. So I'm
not at all clear what you have left that you can call "semantic." For
comparison, it's pretty clear that, for example, XML tags carry
zero semantic content; they are merely suggestive of meaning
when viewed by a human, but have no innate semantic content
of themselves.


Is it really not possible? That doesn't sound good. Relations can
contain any possible data structure; if your system can't encode
relations then it is less expressive than a system that can have
relations. Also, if your system doesn't have formal rules of
normalization, then you have no way to tell whether your
metadata allows redundant data, which is a significant flaw
in your attempts to capture semantics.


Okay, so you've made up a new language, but that rather makes
it your responsibility to figure out how we can communicate.


If it is to be considered as useful, then it will have to at least be
able to do everything the "static traditional" one can do. Can
it do that? What kinds of integrity constaints does it support?


If you really mean "prove" then you're going to need a solid mathematical
foundation for your system. Do you have such a model?


I have no idea what any of this means.


Not so far, but I'm interested to see what you come up with.


Sure. But let me ask a question: did you spend any time mastering
the fundamentals of data management as they exist today before
you tried to leapfrog them?


Marshall

Originally posted by Bob Badour




--
Posted via http://dbforums.com

Nice of you to be so thorough and thoughtful. Thanks.

Let me reiterate, the human memory system is two memory system-
conceptual/perceptual. So, in simulating it, we make the assumption
there are only two columns (this is based in neurophysiological
science). Using two columns and creating links between nodes might seem
exponential (n squared), but that doesn't happen in the real world. How
come? Specificity using cognitive functions of deduction, reduction,
recall, reasoning, association, categorization, imaging is provided
along with structure determined innate logic. What's logic anyways? if
a=b and b=c, then a=c remember? IF-THEN automatically (many to many and
multi-format as well). Our system automatically makes these dynamic
associations. Sooo, the long and short of it is: embedded machine logic
alongside the information management and retrieval cognitive
functionalities unified in dual reciprocal processing memory structure
yields logN processing speeds, much smaller memory allocation space and
provides 60% or more less dba effort.

I'd be happy to send you a more thorough treatise on the subject.

And perhaps you may see whay we are claiming to have the next gen
semantic web structure as well.

Thanks!

Wick


--
Posted via http://dbforums.com

Originally posted by Wick

In your starting post you said: "What I am trying to understand is if
what I am claiming about the semantic data structure makes any sense to
any db experts. I guess I'm talking a different language... "



From this one would assume you do not claim yourself to be a db expert.
How then can you justify your assertion that your 2 column model
"provides 60% or more less dba effort."?



Your idea sounds like the usual "hyper-generic" database design that
consists of 2 tables: "Thing" and "Relationship".


--
Posted via http://dbforums.com

HI Tony:

Yeah, I am not a db expert in any sense. I like to fly fish for tarpon.

I said that I was the investor in my first post on Oracle and IBM
forums, may have not said that in this one.I have spent a lot of my
personal fortune on this human memory simulation software because I am
trained in biology (euphemism for BS in Bio). And it deeply interests
me. And, I do see machines getting smaller, faster and more capabale in
every way...except in the aspect of intelligence. I ask myself "what is
intelligence?" I happen to believe the foundation of intelligence is
"innate logic". I go to trade shows and see "knowledge management" and
intuitive software and intelligent agents and neural nets, neural
agents, Bayesian theories and blinking "smart" signs everywhere and
think to myself- how is it that we humans are able to process
intelligently and generate knowledge? How am I able to hear a question,
like, "where were you on September 11 when the second plane hit the
tower?" And I ask myself, how, with all the data stored in my memory, am
I able to pinpoint the specific answer to that question? N squared
proceessing nematode-like? Or relational tables, fields and subfields
and subrows... or tree/directory structures (trees are only so big on
this planet) or what? My partner is a neurophysicist who is able to
answer this question. Further, he has spent his life's work developing
what he is claiming is the unified theory of cognition. F=ma, PV=nrT and
now this new unified theory of cognition. I can pass you along to the
patent application if you're interested, but this is no place to talk
about the implications of f=ma or e=mc squared. Or our very simple law
which describes human logic processing. And the truly amazing thing is
that within the human memory structure, simulated with a very simple
law, is innate human logic- logic, is indeed, structure determined. You
were warned I am talking a different language! But the results are
simply startling. a=b, b=c, then a=c.. AND the fact remains that db
experts are, if they care to analyze what they are doing at all, simply
information organizers. Hey, so is our brain! And it handles multi-
format data, automatically does many to many relations, after all, it
contains innate logic. So, I beg the question again, what is logic? And
why is it our "blow your horn, create a business plan and make a billion
dollars" theme for this forum? Because logic is automatically for our
system what you guys do expertly and rules-based. In the classic sense
it is automatic IF-THEN relationships. If I have conveyed that, then ask
yourself, "how do we specify addresses without sorting or schema?" The
brain utilizes methodologies called cognitive functions, which neural
net people try to simulate all the time. What is deduction? One way down
a linear tree like structure. What is reduction? The opposite of
deduction. What is recall? Goes down the structure multiple levels and
branches out in varying pathways. What is reasoning? Same, just the
opposite direction, BUT goes through a specified node. And so on. Each
function finds the most logical node to begin processing the query.
Unifying all the retrieval assets combinatorially at the most
semantically relevant node. How do we claim logN processing speeds? In
my mind, I see what the traditional rules-based people doing is "finding
a needle in a haystack". What we do, in our system and in the brain, is
analogous to a moth and a light bulb. You ask a specifying question and
get a lot of data. You ask a more specific question and get ONE accurate
answer. I ask you, how many people in France bought blue cars yesterday?
Then I refine my query (OK?) and ask, How many people bought blue
Citroens in Nice yesterday? How many people bought new blue SX model
Citroens in Nice between the hours of 1PM and 2:30PM?? We can specifiy
and deliver these answers without sorting through "who bought golf carts
in Spain?" Or why was the sky blue in Madird?" just because the words
BLUE or BOUGHT were in the query and the database. Not keyword, but "concept-
based". What is this query about? We humans don't bother sorting through
Golf Carts, unless the query was phrased as, "who bought a blue vehicle
in Europe yesterday?" Might get motorbikes, boats and helicopters,
right? Wow,I hope you've read this. Believe me, I AM just the investor,
but I consider myself somewhat as smart as the average garbage man or
deep sea scallop diver. Should have gone into abalone diving...

Now ask yourself what REALLY REALLY is the web? The www? To me, it is a
repository of a whole lot of knowledge. Multi-formatted (jpeg, txt,
exe. email and so on) with links out. However, access is limited by the
"structure". Rules, language, specificity problems, keywords (whose
keywords are those anyway?), but let me reiterate in my own words what
W3C and Berners-Lee are attempting with XML/RDF/OWL and so on. They
recognize the www and HTML is non communicative. It is expert language,
it is pre-determined by the rules/language/ontology committee and it is
NOT SEMANTIC. They are shut down with simply providing 3 associations to
each sirte. Some ontology... Sorry...Semantic here means "content
oriented". What is your home site "about"? How would I, as a searcher,
find your homesite? I am looking for "a nose flute player from Algeria
for hire for my daughter's 15th birthday party on September 29. The
party will be held in Portland, Maine at 6PM". How do I find this
player??? Directory structures have no deeper row than "wind instrument"
players. HTML has no way to assemble and parse the solution to my very
specific query (check Google- they get bog down at fourth description
level, demonstrating rules-based algorithms which crash big time after
they loop on third or fourth tier levels... I must say, better than last
year when they only handled a couple). Hey. What's the optimum query
language? Well, I should ask YOU, what's the universal query langauge?
Natural Language, right? We all speak, write and think in it. So, our
system is developed with that in mind. Natural language front end- we
call it Communication Agent, with a simulated human memory structure as
the architecture of the next gen NATURAL LANGUAGE DESCRIPTOR semantic
web. Natural Language descriptors are the meatadata. Meaning is resolved
when you consider "what is the metadata ABOUT?" Descriptors ARE Content
is what it's about. We provide the application to provide
"communication" between web site builders and web site searchers. 100%
accuracy, provides for infinitely associative specificity and
targetability, and is processing at logN speeds due to innate logic.
Many to many and so on.... Does this sound like I've jumped yet? i MAY
HAVE...;-)

I would be honored to pass along a demo application... if you are
willing to think about this outside the box of rigid db expert rules-
based programming. TYhere are NO RULES. Universal grammar is the axion
by which we humans communicate. I believe you will get it. Hey, sounds
like a disciple, right? I hate religion.

Cheers,

Wick


--
Posted via http://dbforums.com

The "hyper-generic" database would have its virtue if it were done
correctly. The problems is that the relational model can barely express a
relationship. "A foreign key 'EQUALS' a primary" is about all it allows a db
expert to say. With a relational database, try to model all the
relationships in a simple story like this
Jack and Jill had a boy named Jimmy at St Luke's where Jill used to work.
Jimmy was taken care of by Dr. J who is a friend of Jack's boss.

Time to give hyper-generic database another look t
http://www.geocities.com/unifiedmodel/.

Kenny Yu

"andrewst" <member14183 (AT) dbforums (DOT) com> wrote

"Kenny Yu" <kennyyu (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote

Huh? You are an ignorant moron. Plonk.


I suggest you open a book before you open your mouth.

"Kenny Yu" <kennyyu (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote


The greatest nonsense in a long time here.


Alfredo