What if any is a good best practice / approach for a use case where a given business activity uses estimates that are then replaced by actual as they become available? In the same way that effective dates can be used to "automatically" (without user's having to know about it) retrieve historically accurate dimension rows, is there a similar way to have actual "automatically" replace the estimates without overwriting the data? I'd rather not have separate fact tables or columns and require that the users have to "know" about this and manually change it to get the latest actuals.
Why not have 2 measures in your fact table, one for estimate and one for actual?
You could then have a View over the fact table with a single measure calculated as "if actual = 0 then estimate else actual".
Users who just need the current position can use the View; users who need the full picture can access the underlying fact table
I'm trying to implement a specific type of process mining, that has been presented in this thesis [link]. It is based on HMMs and generates a process model in form of a directed graph, where:
Nodes are called intentions and correspond to hidden states
Edges are called strategies and consist of different activities
These activities correspond to the HMM's observable emissions
Intentions can be fulfilled using different strategies
A user event log consisting of user IDs, timestamps and activities is used as input. The image below is an example of such a process model. The highlighted nodes and edges resemble the path that has been predicted using the Viterbi algorithm.
You can see that the graph's nodes and edges only carry numeric labels, which allow to distinguish between the different strategies and intentions. In order to make these labels more meaningful to the human reader, I'd like to infer some suitable labels.
My idea is to use an ontology to obtain those labels. After some research I figured out that I probably needed to do something that is generally referred to as "ontology learning". For this I would need to create some axioms in RDF/OWL format and then use these as input for a reasoner, that would infer an ontology.
Is this approach correct and reasonable to achieve my goal?
If this is the way to go, I will need some tool to generate axioms in an automated way. So far I couldn't find any tool that would do that completely out-of-the-box. Based on what I've seen so far I conclude that I would need to define some kind of mapping between the original data and the desired axioms. I took a closer look at protégé, which offers a plugin for spreadsheets. It seems to be based on the MappingMasterDSL project [link].
I've also found an interesting paper [link] on ontology learning where an RNN-based model is trained in a end-to-end fashion to translate definitory sentences into OWL formulae. BUT: My user event log data does not contain any natural sentences. Its activities are defined by tokens derived from HTML elements of the user interface. Therefore the RNN-based approach does not seem to be applicable here. (For the interested reader, the related project can be found here [link])
Isn't there really any easier way than hand-crafting the axioms' schema(ta)?
Assuming that I have created my axioms and inferred an ontology, I would like to use the strategies' (edges') observable activities (emissions) to infer a suitable label. I guess I would need to query my ontology somehow. I could use the activity names as parameters for my query and look for some related entities that reveal the desired label. I'm expecting something like:
"I have a strategy with ID=3, that strategy can be executed with
actions a, b and c, give me all entities of the ontology, that
have these actions as property value and show and give me all related
labels for those entities"
But where would the data for the labels actually come from?
I think I'm missing some important step during the process of ontology learning. Where do I find an additional data source for the labels and how do I relate this data to my ontology's entities?
Also I'm wondering if there is a way to incorporate the inherent knowledge of the process model's topology into my ontology.
I am designing a system for anomaly detection.
There are multiple approaches for building such system. I choose to implement one facet of such system by detection of features shared by the majority of samples. I acknowledge the possible insufficiencies of such method but for my specific use-case: (1) It suffices to know that a new sample contains (or lacks) features shared by the majority of past data to make a quick decision.(2) I'm interested in the insights such method will offer to the data.
So, here is the problem:
Consider a large data set with M data points, where each data point may include any number of {key:value} features. I choose to model a training dataset by grouping all the features observed in the data (the set of all unique keys) and setting it as the model's feature space. I define each sample by setting its values for existing keys and None for values in features it does not include.
Given this training data set I want to determine which features reoccur in the data; and for such reoccurring features, do they mostly share a single value.
My question:
A simple solution would be to count everything - for each of the N features calculate the distribution of values. However as M and N are potentially large, I wonder if there is a more compact way to represent the data or more sophisticated method to make claims about features' frequencies.
Am I reinventing an existing wheel? If there's an online approach for accomplishing such task it would be even better.
If I understand correctly your question,
you need to go over all the data anyway, so why not using hash?
Actually two hash tables:
Inner hash table for the distribution of feature values.
Outer hash table for feature existence.
In this way, the size of the inner hash table will indicate how is the feature common in your data, and the actual values will indicate how they differ one another. Another thing to notice is that you go over your data only once, and the time complexity for every operation (almost) on hash tables (if you allocate enough space from the beginning) is O(1).
Hope it helps
I have a list of entries, which can be thought of as paragraphs from a book, stored as separate objects of the same class. These objects have a ‘num’ property, along with the actual text, so that I know their order and can later display them in as a list in the correct order (1,2,3, …).
Now I want to bring this one step further and be able to ‘record’ the structure of the book, like the table of contents. In other words, say the book is divided into chapters, and each chapter is further divided into sections. The first few paragraphs are found under Ch.1 Sec.1, then Ch.1 Sec. 2, and so on all the way to Ch. n, S. m. What I’m not sure of is what’s a good way to record this information? I've been told that I should use a database with SQL but I'm not sure where to begin.
The implementation must allow me to ‘quickly’ determine the following two things at any point: (1) Given a chapter and section #, what paragraphs are contained within this section? (2) Given a paragraph #, which chapter and section is it under? It must also be flexible enough that I could use the same platform in the future with few edits if the structure (depth-wise) of the book changes (e.g. sections are divided into subsections, etc.). Finally, should be able to handle optional divisions (i.e. some sections have subsections while others do not).
This is for an iOS app and my code is written in Objective-C so far.
SQL would certainly be one possibility. If you follow this route, there is a certain trade-off between flexibility and easy of coding which impacts maintainability. For example, if you build a fixed structure, say with some additional levels attempting to cater for the future, such as:
Book
Chapter
Section
Sub-section
Paragraph
you will have code with unambiguous references, such as section.fk_chapter, paragraph.fk_subSection, etc. This will make it easier to troubleshoot and build queries. However you have the problem of having to refactor your code a fair amount if you wanted to add, say, sub-paragaphs, or sub-sub-sections. Your UI will be simpler to code in this approach as you always know which "level" you are working at. Alternatively, you can go for a hierarchical approach:
Book
Chapter
Content Item
Content Item
Content Item
....
where the contentItem table has a self-reference foreign key. This has the quite big advantage of allowing you any number of levels. Some attribute on the Content Item could tell you the name and "type" of level you are at if needed. It is definitely much more flexible, but will come with some complexity in implementation and UI presentation. columns called contentItem.fk_contentItem to refer to the parent level do not tell the coder where they are in the hierarchy. Queries will be a bit more difficult to write. The UI will have to cater for "any" number of levels. But on the other hand, these problems are not insurmountable and many have gone before you on this route.
Your question is quite broad, so opinions will vary on the approach and the above is admittedly very general.
I have just read #PerformanceDBA's arguments re: 6NF and E-A-V. I am intrigued. I had previously been skeptical of 6NF as it was presented as "merely" sticking some timestamp columns on tables.
I have always worked with a data dictionary and do not need to be convinced to use one, or to generate SQL code. So I expect an answer that would require a dictionary (or catalog) that is used to generate code.
So I would like to know how 6NF would deal with an extremely simple example. A table of items, descriptions and prices. The prices change over time.
So anyway, what does the Items table look like when converted to 6NF? What is the "explosion of tables?" that happens here?
If the example does not work with a table this simple, feel free to add what is necessary to get the point across.
I actually started putting an answer together, but I ran into complications, because you (quite understandably) want a simple example. The problem is manifold.
First I don't have a good idea of your level of actual expertise re Relational Databases and 5NF; I don't have a starting point to take up and then discuss the specifics of 6NF,
Second, just like any of the other NFs, it is variegated. You can just barely step into it; you can implement 6NF for certan tables; you can go the full hog on every table, etc. Sure there is an explosion of tables, but then you Normalise that, and kill the explosion; that's an advanced or mature implementation of 6NF. No use providing the full or partial levels of 6NF, when you are asking for the simplest, most straight-forward example.
I trust you understand that some tables can be "in 5NF" while others are "in 6NF".
So I put one together for you. But even that needs explanation.
Now SQL barely supports 5NF, it does not support 6NF at all (I think dportas says the same thing in different words). Now I implement 6NF at a deep level, for performance reasons, simplified pivoting (of entire tables; any and all columns, not the silly PIVOT function in MS), columnar access, etc. For that you need a full catalogue, which is an extension to the SQL catalogue, to support the 6NF that SQL does not support, and maintain data Integrity and business Rules. So, you really do not want to implement 6NF for fun, you only do that if you have a need, because you have to implement a catalogue. (This is what the EAV crowd do not do, and this is why most EAV systems have data integrity problems. Most of them do not use the declarative Referential & Data Integrity that SQL does have.)
But most people who implement 6NF don't implement the deeper level, with a full catalogue. They have simpler needs, and thus implement a shallower level of 6NF. So, let's take that, to provide a simple example for you. Let's start with an ordinary Product table that is declared to be in 5NF (and let's not argue about what 5NF is). The company sells various different kinds of Products, half the columns are mandatory, and the other half are optional, meaning that, depending on the Product Type, certain columns may be Null. While they may have done a good job with the database, the Nulls are now a big problem: columns that should be Not Null for certain ProductTypes are Null, because the declaration states NULL, and their app code is only as good as the next guy's.
So they decide to go with 6NF to fix that problem, because the subtitle of 6NF states that it eliminates The Null Problem. Sixth Normal Form is the irreducible Normal Form, there will be no further NFs after this, because the data cannot be Normalised further. The rows have been Normalised to the utmost degree. The definition of 6NF is:
a table is in 6NF when the row contains the Primary Key, and at most one, attribute.
Notice that by that definition, millions of tables across the planet are already in 6NF, without having had that intent. Eg. typical Reference or Look-up tables, with just a PK and Description.
Right. Well, our friends look at their Product table, which has eight non-key attributes, so if they make the Product table 6NF, they will have eight sub-Product tables. Then there is the issue that some columns are Foreign Keys to other tables, and that leads to more complications. And they note the fact that SQL does not support what they are doing, and they have to build a small catalogue. Eight tables are correct, but not sensible. Their purpose was to get rid of Nulls, not to write a little subsytem around each table.
Simple 6NF Example
Readers who are unfamiliar with the Standard for Modelling Relational Databases may find IDEF1X Notation useful in order to interpret the symbols in the example.
So typically, the Product Table retains all the Mandatory columns, especially the FKs, and each Optional column, each Nullable column, is placed in a separate sub-Product table. That is the simplest form I have seen. Five tables instead of eight. In the Model, the four sub-Product tables are "in 6NF"; the main Product table is "in 5NF".
Now we really do not need every code segment that SELECTs from Product to have to figure out what columns it should construct, based on the ProductType, etc, so we supply a View, which essentially provides the 5NF "view" of the Product table cluster.
The next thing we need is the basic rudiments of an extension to the SQL catalog, so that we can ensure that the rules (data integrity) for the various ProductTypes are maintained in one place, in the database, and not dependent on app code. The simplest catalogue you can get away with. That is driven off ProductType, so ProductType now forms part of that Metadata. You can implement that simple structure without a catalogue, but I would not recommend it.
Update
It is important to note that I implement all Business Rules in the database. Otherwise it is not a database (the notion of implementing rules "in application code" is hilarious in the extreme, especially nowadays, when we have florists working as "developers"). Therefore all rules, etc are first and foremost implemented as SQL declarations, CHECK constraints, functions, etc. That preserves all Declarative Referential Integrity, and declarative Data Integrity. The extension to the SQL catalog covers the area that SQL does not have declarations for, and they are then implemented as SQL. Being a good data dictionary, it does much more. Eg. I do not write Views every time I change the tables or add or change columns or their characteristics, they are created directly from the catalog+extension using a simple code generator.
One more very important note. You cannot implement 6NF (or EAV properly, for that matter), without completing a full and faithful Normalisation exercise, to 5NF. The problem I see at every site is, they don't have a genuine 5NF state, they have a mish-mash of partial normalisation or no normalisation at all, but they are very attached to that. Creating either 6NF or EAV from that is a disaster. Creating EAV or 6NF from that without all business rules implemented in declarative SQL is a nuclear disaster, burning for years. You get what you pay for.
End update.
Finally, yes, there are at least four further levels of Normalisation (Normalisation is a Principle, not a mere reference to a Normal Form), that can be applied to that simple 6NF Product cluster, providing more control, less tables, etc. The deeper we go, the more extensive the catalogue. And higher levels of performance. When you are ready, just ask, I have already erected the models and posted details in other answers.
In a nutshell, 6NF means that every relation consists of a candidate key plus no more than one other (key or non-key) attribute. To take up your example, if an "item" is identified by a ProductCode and the other attributes are Description and Price then a 6NF schema would consist of two relations (* denotes the key in each):
ItemDesc {ProductCode*, Description}
ItemPrice {ProductCode*, Price}
This is potentially a very flexible approach because it minimises the dependencies. That's also its main disadvantage however, especially in a SQL database. SQL makes it hard or impossible to enforce many multi-table constraints. Using the above schema, in most cases it will not be possible to enforce a business rule that every product must always have a description AND a price. Similarly, you may not be able to enforce some compound keys that ought to apply (because their attributes could be split over multiple tables).
So in considering 6NF you have to weigh up which dependencies and integrity rules are important to you. In many cases you may find it more practical and useful to stick to 5NF and normalize no further than that.
I had previously been skeptical of 6NF
as it was presented as "merely"
sticking some timestamp columns on
tables.
I'm not quite sure where this apparent misconception comes from. Perhaps the fact that 6NF was introduced for the book "Temporal Data and The Relational Mode" by Date, Darwen and Lorentzos? Anyhow, I hope the other answers here have clarified that 6NF is not limited to temporal databases.
The point I wanted to make is, although 6NF is "academically respectable" and always achievable, it may not necessarily lead to the optimal design in every case (and not just when considering implementation using SQL either). Even the aforementioned discoverers and proponents of 6NF seem to agree e.g.
Chris Date: "For practical purposes, stick to 5NF (and 6NF)."
Hugh Darwen: "the 6NF decomposition around Date [not the person!] would be overkill... an optimal design for the soccer club is... 5-and-a-bit-NF!"
Hugh Darwen: "we are in 5NF but not in 6NF, and again 5NF is sufficient" (several similar examples).
Then again, I can also find evidence to the contrary:
Chris Date: "Darwen and I have both felt for some time that all base relvars should be in 6NF".
On a practical note, I recently extended the SQL schema of one of our products to add a minor feature. I adopted a 6NF to avoid nullable columns and ended up with six new tables where most (all?) of my colleagues would have used one table (or perhaps extended an existing table) with nullable columns. Despite me proving several 'helper' stored procs and a 'denormalized' VIEW with a INSTEAD OF triggers, every coder that has had to work with this feature at the SQL level has gone out of their way to curse me :)
These guys have it down: Anchor Modeling. Great academic papers on the subject, combined with practical examples. Their writings have finally pushed me over the edge to consider building a DW in 6nf on an upcoming project. The POC work I have done has validated (for me, at least) that the enormous benefits of 6nf don't outweigh the costs.