Need for Logical Schema

In order to effectively exchange information, a logical schema is necessary.  Why?  Because, without that logical schema you simply cannot prove to yourself or others using the information that the information represented is not "garbage".  Without a logical schema you simply cannot prove to yourself that you have represented the information correctly.  Further, without a logical schema anyone trying to make use of that represented information cannot understand how to do so and cannot verify for themselves that the information represented is not garbage.

That is the fundamental purpose of the Seattle Method which I have summarized in the document Purpose of Seattle Method.  In that document I provide 9 verification categories.  That last "Other" is a catch all where additional verification can be added.  I have combined two math related verification categories that I had separated out because of an XBRL related idiosyncrasy.  These are the seven MINIMUM verification categories that seem to be common to every area of knowledge:

  1. Physical syntax format needs to be consistent with the applicable technical specification.
  2. Mathematics logic of information represented needs to be right. (Combines two items from document)
  3. Model structure logic needs to be consistent with expectation.
  4. High level continuity logic between structures should not be contradictory or inconsistent.
  5. Type-subtype logic need to be consistent with expectations. (a.k.a. wider-narrower; general-special)
  6. Structure’s mechanics logic of each structure needs to be consistent with expectations.
  7. Information package content needs to be consistent with the expectations. (what is provided is consistent with what is deemed required to be provided)
There are no shortcuts in life. A craftsperson needs to understand their craft.

A logical system has a logical schema that articulates information about the logical theory that describes the logical system and makes sure information in the logical system is consistent with expectations.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Relational Knowledge Graph System (RKGS)

Image
Relational Knowledge Graph System (RKGS) is an interesting idea that combines the relational paradigm and the knowledge graph paradigm.  This documentation, Why RKGS , explains the idea. This gets even more interesting with the notion of "relational AI".  RelationalAI is described as follows by the company of the same name, Relational.ai : “RelationalAI is a cloud-based relational knowledge graph management system, with state of the art probabilistic processing and declarative reasoning at scale to make developing Data Applications a superpower for your business.” This notion of knowledge graphs represented in relational databases fits into my belief that knowledge graphs have two aspects: the expression SYNTAX and the logic of what is expressed or SEMANTICS. While the LOGIC of a knowledge graph is always the same regardless of technical syntax used to express that logic; there are many, many different technical syntaxes that can be used to represent a knowledge graph. There
Read more

Graph Hairball

Image
Knowledge graph system logic, the "things" and "relations between things" that  graph theory calls "vertices" (a.k.a. nodes, points, entities, things) and "edges" (a.k.a.  links, lines, relations, associations), looks like a big graph hairball as some people call it an example of which you can see here: Why?  This common view of a graph is because there has to be some "general view" of the information provided by the graph.  This is just like a general view of the information within a relational database is a table ; a set of ROWS and COLUMNS for exactly one table at a time. So what is interesting is that with a graph database the default view is everything in the graph of knowledge.  Whereas the default view of everything in a relational database is one table at a time. Further, it does not really matter whether the information that populates your knowledge graph comes from, say, CSV files, Excel, JSON, XBRL, RDF, PROLOG or whateve
Read more

PLATINUM Business Use Cases, Test Cases, Conformance Suite

Image
A brick wall is made of exactly two things: bricks, mortar. But a brick wall created by a master craftsman, or mason, and a brick wall created by a “weekend warrior” with no knowledge of masonry will be very different. Master craftsmen are created and that process takes time and effort. This blog post is a first prototype that brings several things together into one useful resource for business professionals.  It pulls together the human readable information of the Showcase of Reports   and the machine readable information of the Conformance Suite of XBRL-based Financial Reports Prepared using the Seattle Method .  Then, I want to incorporate the information found in these PLATINUM XBRL-based Financial Report Examples . The three resources can be useful and used independently; but they are even more useful when used together.  Business professionals really could not care a less about the technical details of getting some result that they want.  But technical professionals need to under
Read more