Re: It don't mean a thing ...
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 01:12:08 GMT
Message-ID: <IP9vc.1212$rz4.1088_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
"Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:784vc.4793$jf3.2715_at_newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> news:M82vc.541$rz4.456_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > 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
>
> I take the stance that data on its own does have meaning, or at least that
> meaning gives it a useful definition.
How long does that meaning last *on its own*? The data has meaning for you, as a DB related professional, but it has no meaning to the end organization without its interface.
You might like to think that you could act as an intermediatory between that data and that organization *because* you can interpret the data and its meaning in isolation from the apps. But in reality, unless you reconstructed the app, you could not service this need across the entire organization.
The meaning might last for a day or a year?
TRUTH espoused by Date and the mathematical minded is not as absolute as one would believe. It is a relative term that describes the integrity of the data. As time passes that integrity slowly fails without maintenance from the external world.
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
www.mountainman.com.au/four_agreements.htm
Received on Wed Jun 02 2004 - 03:12:08 CEST