JACIII Vol.10 No.5 pp. 633-646
doi: 10.20965/jaciii.2006.p0633


Generalizing Possibility-Based Fuzzy Relational Models

Michinori Nakata

Department of Management Science, Faculty of Management and Information Science, Josai International University, 1 Gumyo, Togane, Chiba 283-8555, Japan

January 5, 2006
April 27, 2006
September 20, 2006
imperfect information, semantic ambiguity, indistinguishability, membership attribute, possibility-based fuzzy relational model
The generalized possibility-based fuzzy relational model we propose frees possibility-based fuzzy relational models from the semantic ambiguity and the indistinguishability of membership attribute values. We demonstrate extended relational algebra in this data model. To prevent the semantic ambiguity, a membership attribute is attached to every attribute. This clarifies where each membership attribute value comes from. What each membership attribute value means depends on the property of that attribute. To prevent the indistinguishability of membership attribute values, the value is expressed in a possibility distribution in interval [0,1]. This clarifies what effects the imprecise data value allowed for an attribute has on the membership attribute value. No semantic ambiguity and no indistinguishability of membership attribute values therefore exists in the generalized possibility-based fuzzy relational model.
Cite this article as:
M. Nakata, “Generalizing Possibility-Based Fuzzy Relational Models,” J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform., Vol.10 No.5, pp. 633-646, 2006.
Data files:
  1. [1] J. F. Baldwin, “A Fuzzy Relational Inference Language for Expert Systems,” in Proceedings of the 13th IEEE Inter. Symp. on Multiple-Valued Logic (Kyoto, Japan), pp. 416-421, 1983.
  2. [2] P. Bosc, D. Dubois, O. Pivert, and H. Prade, “Flexible queries in relational databases – The example of the division operator,” Theoretical Computer Science, 171, pp. 281-302, 1997.
  3. [3] P. Bosc and O. Pivert, “On the Impact of Regular Functional Dependencies When Moving to a Possibilistic Database Framework,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 171, pp. 207-227, 2003.
  4. [4] D. A. Chiang, N. P. Lin, and C. C. Shis, “Matching Strengths of Answers in Fuzzy Relational Databases,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 28:3, pp. 476-481, 1998.
  5. [5] E. F. Codd, “A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Banks,” Communications of ACM, 13, pp. 377-387, 1970.
  6. [6] E. F. Codd, “Relational Completeness of Data Base Sublanguages,” Data Base Systems, R. Rustin (Ed.), Prentice-Hall 1972, pp. 65-98, 1972.
  7. [7] D. Dubois and H. Prade with the Collaboration of H. Farreny, R. Martin-Clouaire, and C. Testemale, “Possibility Theory: An Approach to Computerized Processing of Uncertainty,” Plenum Publishing Co., 1988.
  8. [8] D. Dubois and H. Prade, “Semantics of Quotient Operators in Fuzzy Relational Databases,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 78, pp. 89-93, 1996.
  9. [9] D. Li and D. Liu, “A Fuzzy Prolog Database System,” Research Studies Press, 1990.
  10. [10] J. M. Medina, O. Pons, and M. A. Vila, “GEFRED: A Generalized Model of Fuzzy Relational Databases,” Information Sciences, 76, pp. 87-109, 1994.
  11. [11] M. Nakata, “Integrity Constraints in Fuzzy Databases,” in Proceedings of the first Asian Fuzzy System Symposium, Singapore, November 23-26, 1993.
  12. [12] M. Nakata, “Unacceptable Components in Fuzzy Relational Databases,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 11:9, pp. 633-648, 1996.
  13. [13] M. Nakata, “A Semantic-Ambiguity-Free Relational Model for Handling Imperfect Information,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence, Vol.3, No.1, pp. 3-12, 1999.
  14. [14] M. Nakata, “Formulating Division Operators in fuzzy relational databases,” in Knowledge Management in Fuzzy Databases, O. Pons, M. A. Vila, and J. Kacprzyk (Eds.), Physica Verlag, pp. 144-156, 2000.
  15. [15] S. Parsons, “Current Approaches to Handling Imperfect Information in Data and Knowledge Bases,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 8:3, pp. 353-372, 1996.
  16. [16] H. Prade, “Lipski’s Approach to Incomplete Information Data Bases Restated and Generalized in the Setting of Zadeh’s Possibility Theory,” Information Systems 9:1, pp. 27-42, 1984.
  17. [17] H. Prade and C. Testemale, “Generalizing Database Relational Algebra for the Treatment of Incomplete or Uncertain Information and Vague Queries,” Information Science, 34, pp. 115-143, 1984.
  18. [18] K. Tanaka, S. Kobayashi, and T. Sakanoue, “Uncertainty Management in Object-Oriented Database Systems,” Proceedings of Database and Expert Systems Applications, DEXA ’91, D. Karagiannis (Ed.), Springer-Verlag, pp. 251-256, 1991.
  19. [19] J. Ullman, “Principles of Database Systems, 2nd edition,” Computer Science Press, 1982.
  20. [20] M. Umano, “FREEDOM-O: A Fuzzy Database System, Fuzzy Information and Decision Processes,” M. M. Gupta and E. Sanchez (Eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 339-347, 1982.
  21. [21] M. Umano and S. Fukami, “Fuzzy Relational Algebra for Possibility-Distribution-Fuzzy-Relational Model of Fuzzy Data,” Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 3, pp. 7-27, 1994.
  22. [22] L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy Sets,” Information and Control, 12, pp. 338-353, 1965.
  23. [23] L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy Sets as a Basis for a Theory of Possibility,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1, pp. 3-28, 1978.
  24. [24] M. Zemankova and A. Kandel, “Fuzzy Relational Databases – Key to Expert Systems,” Verlag TÜV Rheinland, Cologne, 1984.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Jun. 03, 2024