2002
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-36131-6_25
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Designing Fuzzy Relations in Orthogonal Persistence Object-Oriented Database Engines

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2006
2006

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Both elements could be extended to their fuzzy counterparts through subclassing, and other conceptual data elements like associations 30 can be derived from the common superclass DescriptorBase, which is an open-ended hook for them that only provides a basic descriptive functionality. The last version of OJB has declared ClassDescriptor as final, which then forces having a workaround of this design.…”
Section: Describing Imperfect-data Elementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both elements could be extended to their fuzzy counterparts through subclassing, and other conceptual data elements like associations 30 can be derived from the common superclass DescriptorBase, which is an open-ended hook for them that only provides a basic descriptive functionality. The last version of OJB has declared ClassDescriptor as final, which then forces having a workaround of this design.…”
Section: Describing Imperfect-data Elementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…-Closeness between users is modelled as a fuzzy relation, represented as a <<fuzzy>> association (see [19]). This relationship is constructed from the history of recommendations, that serves as an estimator due to the fact that deeper knowledge of each other is assumed to be correlated to the quantity of interactions.…”
Section: Conceptual Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These preferences may be stated in a general way as assertions in the form (u, c) : likesGranularity = 0.8 where u is a user of the system u : U ser = 1 , and c may be a content, node (or any other form of UI element description), which can be expressed as the assertion u : Content N ode U IElement = 1 in a generic way. Once again, storing assertions for the whole cartesian product of users and elements may be unpractical in many situations, specially for large relations stored in databases (see [20]). We have devised an straightforward approach to granulate preferences, consisting on the representation of user preferences as related to prototypical instances representing vague categories.…”
Section: Preference Modelingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This form of computing relevances calls for a very specific storage format for preferences, to avoid retrieving all the database of objects. One possible approach may be that of storing the likesX predicates as fuzzy relations in compact α-cut format [20] thus obtaining a O(m+m·log m) complexity, being m the number of relations likeX from u i having significant degrees, and provided that the relations are sorted in m · log m by object to enable the computation of the final degrees in a single pass.…”
Section: Information Filteringmentioning
confidence: 99%