3d versus 4d datastores - Illustrating ‘information fusion’
In previous posts I’ve been looking at how the use of a 4d data store can help improve a particular form of analysis (specifically for cybersecurity analysis)
Based on feedback since that post - I’ve worked with some wider AIM associates (particular thanks to Tony Walmsley for his technical input on this) to have a deeper dive into what it actually means to use a 4d datastore in comparison to current 3d datastore equivalents (conventional relational databases).
This has been a useful exercise and the following high level process diagram provides a basic overview of how 3d and 4d processes differ.
The following headlines come from this
3d remains the most simple, cheapest way of quickly storing data
For larger organisational data and information management 3d processes do not manage changes to objects over time
4d datastores, although harder to build initially, provide the means of tracking historical changes over time.
4d datastores don’t lose data lost at the fusion stage (each state temporal part is associated to one of the organisation names)
As we go into 2025, what’s exciting to consider is- ‘How do we leverage the ability of 4D Advanced Information Models to enable better information management?’
This is where current AI research is really significant - both for how techniques like LLM’s and RAGs can be associated with the effort required to build 4d models, but in turn how the gains in using 4D can then be fed back into AI development for better training and ultimately improved understanding.
More to come in the new year…
Happy Christmas!
Chris
