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

mountain man wrote:

> mAsterdam wrote:

>>mountain man wrote:
>>>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>
>>>>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.
>>

>>Is it bits & bytes? Does, in your view, shared data
>>constitute, by definiton, information?

So, Newton had no data you (plural) can speak of. What did he have?

The emergence of bit and bytes changed
the way we can handle data (meaningful data, of course - sigh - should I add this everey time I use the word data? - I'ld rather not). When we handle data them with computers we can say computer data, most of the time that is a little overly specific so we simply say data. Should the definition of data change because of this change in the way we handle them? For what purpose?

> 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.

Agreed.

> 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.

We both encountered this way of thinking. Not only DBA think this way (and luckily not all DBA). I've seen people creating some datamodel + CRUDs, actually thinking they created an application. They did not. I think we are on the same track regarding this.

> 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.

I like to think that data is of meaning and use with and without computers.

> 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.

Yep.

[snip]

> 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.

Sorry, I don't really get this. Where does relational theory come into play? Are you saying relational theory defines data as having meaning? Received on Wed Jun 02 2004 - 08:59:20 CEST