Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements

erk wrote:
> dawn wrote:
> > > The word "structured" here is a waste of time. To use a programming
> > > analogy, a 10,000 line program of imperative spaghetti code has
> > > structure - one could argue too much, of the graph sort, while too
> > > little of the module sort or function sort. "Structured" as a boolean
> > > (or fuzzy-logic) function isn't the point -
> >
> > Sorry, I thought that was the topic at hand. I understand that
> > discussions about which structure something takes might be of more
> > interest. But I do think there is a distinction between what is
> > structured text and what is unstructured text.
>
> I don't think so. It's the endless "what vs. how" debate - it goes all
> the way down and all the way up. Which is which depends on your point
> of view.

I agree, with reservations.

If one were to look at an igloo, a teepee, a ranch house, and a mobile home, one could say that they are all structured abodes, even if structured differently. Toss in a snowman and it would be different, even if also structured -- it would not be a "structured abode".

Similarly, I would guess that if one were to look at name-value pairs, csv files, relational tables, and Pick files, one could say they are all structured data in that they could all be used similarly, even if they are different structures. Toss in a graphic of a monkey or a pair of shoes and you might suggest that even if structured, these are of a different ilk.

So, yes, I think you can talk about structured and unstructured data, and I don't think it is any harder for us to determine whether something is one or the other than it is to determine whether a structure is an abode or not (recognizing there could be grey areas in each, but in most instances it would be clear).

It is function, which includes context (the igloo would not work as well in Texas as in Alaska), and not shape that determines whether a structure is an abode.

> Structures are more or less useful in different contexts, and
> ground our viewpoints.

I agree with the first part of the sentence. I don't have to be stuck on houses that would work in Iowa to be able to tell that an igloo is still a possible abode for someone else. In other words, I don't need to employ my bias for one structure or another when identifying it (for the most part).

> > Unstructured text would
> > be treated by a database like an attribute with values that are mp3's,
> > except character compard to binary data. Any structure to the data
> > sits above (or below) this unstructured data.
>
> And I think it's only in information exchange that the issue of parsing
> (translating a blob of characters or bytes into a structure) is so
> important.

If that translates to "it is only when you are doing something with data that you care about functions that operate on that type of data" then sure. That is why I can't (yet, there is still hope) accept lists only as values for attributes and not known to the model at a lower (or higher) level, for example. cheers! --dawn

<snip> Received on Fri Aug 18 2006 - 00:29:47 CEST