Home -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: It don't mean a thing ...

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

From: mountain man <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 01:12:08 GMT
Message-ID: <IP9vc.1211$rz4.128_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au> 






"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message
news: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?




What we call data is stored by the OS on the HW
by the RDBMS as bits and bytes.  It is maintained
by means of the application software directing the
RDBMS and is presented to the user in the organisation
be means of the application software.



A DBA might like to think that the application layer is
not required, and if it was missing, then if the DBA had
sufficient resources, perhaps the DBA could perform
the role of the application layer and need only the RDBMS
layer and the data for limited instances, but not for the
entire organisation.



Those in this forum who like to think that the data is of
meaning and use (to an organisation) without the application
layer should sit in an organisation alongside the database
and ask themselves how the needs of that organisation
with respect to the data are going to be met without the
application layer.



If the application layer is thieved overnight off a system
the organisation cannot get at the data in the manner that
they are accustomed, and the organisation will ground to
a halt, until that app layer is replaced.



The data is far more critical, of course, and if someone
thieved the data, then the organisation would be searching
for a backup of that data, and would grind to a halt until
that data is replaced.




> > 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.




Theory and practice are complimentary. Relational
theory might like to consider that the data has independent
meaning, but practical theory does not as it is fully aware
that the system consists of integrated elements, the data
being one of these.







Pete Brown


Falls Creek


Oz
Received on Wed Jun 02 2004 - 03:12:08 CEST












Original text of this message