Re: It don't mean a thing ...

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 23:46:14 +0200
Message-ID: <40bcf91b$0$34762$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>

mountain man wrote:
[snip]
> mAsterdam wrote:

>><quote>
>>          Data on its own has no meaning, only
>>          when interpreted by some kind of data
>>          processing system does it take on
>>          meaning and become information.
>></quote>

[snip]
>>Does it have a source?
>>Is it bad?

> The word "meaning" is critical here. Meaning to whom?
> I'd probably guess that this meaning is with respect to
> the organization which has assembled the data, the systems,
> the users, etc. So using this ...
>
> IMO the statement is accurate, but should be
> generalised further: data on its own not only has
> no meaning but is absolutely useless without the
> corresponding application layer by which it is
> constantly maintained.

I never suspected these demarcation lines to be this deep. Appearantly you are talking about completely different stuff than what I am talking about when talking about data in the context of database. A while ago I found out that when some people say database they actually mean what I consider to be a filesystem - no notion of sharing data whatsoever. I'm alert to that know. This - Isuspect - must be a similar dichotomy. Is sharing data possible without sharing meaning?

I would like to get straight what you mean when you use the word data in the context of database. To put thing in cotnext:
Is it bits & bytes? Does, in your view, shared data constitute, by definiton, information?

> The organization requires both the data and the
> application layer in order to function. They are
> the ying and the yang; inseparable.

Ah a metaphore. I like metaphores.
If we loose one bank we loose the river - yet to build a bridge I need to study both banks separately.

:-) Received on Tue Jun 01 2004 - 23:46:14 CEST