Re: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 12:23:30 -0300
Message-ID: <pan.2004.05.17.15.23.30.431942_at_dutra.fastmail.fm>
Em Sat, 15 May 2004 22:58:07 +0100, Anthony W. Youngman escreveu:
> I take it Leandro is parading his ignorance, rather than seeking
> enlightenment.
If you had any to offer...
> But *I* don't know what "data" is "as it really is", and from the
> answers I've got so far I don't think anybody else does.
As far as I remember my Philosophy, that's where English Objectivists -- that's not their real name, I forget it -- went wrong. They wanted to start from data, and couldn't define that.
That's the other reason for my not answering the original question -- there is no answer, other than the trivial -- and useless -- ones already given. The other reason, it's irrelevant to our discussions here.
> The best definition so far is for data as it is defined in the
> relational model (and that's pretty much the only proper definition
> anybody's tried to give).
Which definition, in which version of whose version of it?
> And if we haven't got a philosophical definition, we can't compare the
> philosophical and theoretical definitions, and therefore we haven't got
> a clue as to whether either "the relational model mostly works", or (and
> this is important) where its limitations are and where it breaks down.
It would be more interesting to compare not to a non-existing, non-achievable philosophical definition, but to misunderstanding. Like the differentiation of data and metadata.
-- Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra +55 (11) 5685 2219 Av Sgto Geraldo Santana, 1100 6/71 +55 (11) 5686 9607 04.674-000 São Paulo, SP BRASIL http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/Received on Mon May 17 2004 - 17:23:30 CEST