Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Defining the notion of ‘Information Content’ and reasoning about it in a database

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Knowledge and Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The problem of ‘information content’ of an information system appears elusive. In the field of databases, the information content of a database has been taken as the instance of a database. We argue that this view misses two fundamental points. One is a convincing conception of the phenomenon concerning information in databases, especially a properly defined notion of ‘information content’. The other is a framework for reasoning about information content. In this paper, we suggest a modification of the well known definition of ‘information content’ given by Dretske(Knowledge and the flow of information,1981). We then define what we call the ‘information content inclusion’ relation (IIR for short) between two random events. We present a set of inference rules for reasoning about information content, which we call the IIR Rules. Then we explore how these ideas and the rules may be used in a database setting to look at databases and to derive otherwise hidden information by deriving new relations from a given set of IIR. A prototype is presented, which shows how the idea of IIR-Reasoning might be exploited in a database setting including the relationship between real world events and database values.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

References

  1. Amble T (1987). Logic programming and knowledge engineering. Addison Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arenas M and Libkin L (2005). An information-theoretic approach to normal forms for relational and XML data. J ACM 52: 246–283

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Armstrong WW (1974) Dependency structures of database relationships. In: Proceedings of IFIP 74, North- Holland Pub. Co., Amsterdam, pp 580–583

  4. Barwise J and Perry J (1983). Situations and attitudes. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barwise J, Seligman J (1997) Information flow: the logic of distributed systems. Cambridge University Press, London. ISBN 0-521-58386-1

  6. Batini C, Ceri S and Navathe SB (1992). Conceptual database design—an eitity–relationship approach. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., USA

    Google Scholar 

  7. Berners-Lee T (1998) What the semantic web can represent, http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/RDFnot.html. Accessed Jan 2007

  8. Chachoua M and Pacholczyk D (2002). Qualitative reasoning under ignorance and information-relevant extraction. Knowl Inf Syst 4: 483–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Crowe MK (2007) The Pyrrho database management system, computing and information systems technical reports, 38, University of Paisley, UK. http://www.pyrrhodb.com

  10. Dalkilic MM, Roberston EL (2000) Information dependencies.In: Proceedings of the nineteenth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on principles of database systems, Dallas, Texas, USA pp 245–253

  11. Devlin K (1991). Logic and information. Cambridge University Press, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Dey AK, Abowd GD (2000) Towards a better understanding of context and context-awareness. In the Workshop on The What, Who, Where, When, and How of Context-Awareness, as part of the 2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2000), The Hague, The Netherlands, 3 April 2000.

  13. Dretske FI (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  14. Duží M (2001) Logical foundations of conceptual modelling. In: VŠB-TU Ostrava.

  15. Farquhar A, Fikes R and Rice J (1997). The ontolingua server: a tool for collaborative ontology construction. Int J Hum Comput Stud 46(6): 707–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Feng J (1998) The ‘Information Content’ problem of a conceptual data schema, SYSTEMIST, vol 20, No.4, pp 221–233, ISSN:0961-8309

  17. Feng J, Crowe M (1999) The notion of ‘Classes of a Path’ in ER schemas. In: Proceedings of third East European Conference on advances in databases and information systems, ADBIS’99. Springer, Berlin.

  18. Floridi L (2005). Is semantic information meaningful data. Philos Phenomenol Res 70(2): 351–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Genesereth MR, Fikes RE (1998) Knowledge interchange format (KIF). Draft proposed American National Standard, NCITS. T2/98-004

  20. Grosso W, Eriksson H, Fergerson R, Gennari J, Musen M (1999) Knowledge modelling at the millennium (the design and evolution of Protégé-2000). In: 12th Workshop on knowledge acquisition, modeling and management, Banff, Alberta, Canada.

  21. Hu T and Sung S (2006). Finding centroid clusterings with entropy-based criteria. Knowl Inf Syst 10(4): 505–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hu W, Feng J (2002) Some considerations for a semantic analysis of conceptual data schemata. In: Ragsdell E et al (eds) Systems theory and practice in the knowledge age. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. ISBN 0-306-47247-3

  23. Hull R (1986). Relative information capacity of simple relational database schemata. SIAM J Comput 15(3): 856–886

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Jurisica I, Mylopoulos J and Yu E (2004). Ontologies for knowledge management: an information systems perspective. Knowl Inf Syst 6: 380–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kalfoglou Y, Schorlemmer M (2003) IF-Map: an ontology mapping method based on information flow theory. J Data Semant I. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2800, pp 98–127

  26. Lassila O, Swick R (1999) Resource description framework (RDF) model and syntax specification. http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/. W3C Recommendation.

  27. Lee TT (1987a). An information-theoretic analysis of relational databases—part I: data dependencies and information metric. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 13(10): 1049–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee TT (1987b). An information-theoretic analysis of relational databases—part II: information structure of database schemas. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 13(10): 1061–1072

    Google Scholar 

  29. Levene M (1998). On the information content of semi-structured databases. Acta Cybern 13: 257–275

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Li D (1984). A Prolog database system. Research Studies Press, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Lucas R (1988). Database applications using Prolog. Halsted Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  32. Miller RJ, Ioannidis YE, Ramakrishnan R(1993) The use of information capacity in schema integration and translation. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on very large data bases, Dublin, Ireland, pp 120–133

  33. Miller RJ, Ioannidis YE and Ramakrishnan R (1994). Schema equivalence in heterogeneous systems, bridging theory and practice. Inf Syst 19(1): 3–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ng G, Chan K, Erdogan S and Singh h (2000). Neural network learning using entropy cycle. Knowl Inf Syst 2: 53–72

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Noy N and Klein M (2004). Ontology evolution: not the same as schema evolution. Knowl Inf Syst 6: 428–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Nurcan S, Kouloumdjian J (1991) An advanced knowledge base management system based on the integration of logic programming and relational databases. In: Proceedings of IEEE, CompEuro ’91, Bologna, Ital, pp 740–744

  37. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Sys Tech J 27:379–423,623–656

    Google Scholar 

  38. Shimojima A (1996) On the efficacy of representation. Ph.D. Thesis, The Department of Philosophy, Indiana University

  39. Sieg A, Mobasher B, Burke R, Prabu G, Lytinen S (2005) Representing user information context with ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on universal access in human–computer interaction, Las Vegas, NV

  40. Smith MK, Welty C, McGuinness DL (2004) OWL web ontology language guide. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/. W3C Recommendation

  41. Wielemaker J (2007) SWI-Prolog semantic web library, HCS, University of Amsterdam. http://www.swi-prolog.org. Accessed on Jan 2007

  42. Wille R (1997) Introduction to formal concept analysis. In: Negrini G (ed), Modelli e modellizzazione. Models and modelling. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Instituto di Studi sulli Ricerca e Documentazione Scientifica, Roma, 39-51

  43. Xu H, Feng J (2002) Towards a definition of the ‘Information Bearing Capability’ of a Conceptual Data Schema. In: Systems theory and practice in the knowledge age. Ragsdell E et al (eds) Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. ISBN 0-306-47247-3

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. e-Business Research Institute, Business College, Beijing Union University, Beijing, China

    Kaibo Xu & Junkang Feng

  2. Database Research Group School of Computing, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, UK

    Kaibo Xu, Junkang Feng & Malcolm Crowe

Authors
  1. Kaibo Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Junkang Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Malcolm Crowe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kaibo Xu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Xu, K., Feng, J. & Crowe, M. Defining the notion of ‘Information Content’ and reasoning about it in a database. Knowl Inf Syst 18, 29–59 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-008-0129-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-008-0129-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation