Re: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 14:37:07 +0100
Message-ID: <m24e2vGDAMqAFwsl_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk>
In message <40a6bd9d$0$65124$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>, mAsterdam
<mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> writes
>Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
>
>> x writes:
>...
>>> Why you have not answered the question ?
>...
>> 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. 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).
>> 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.
>
>I won't answer the original question either (I'll just rephrase it),
>but I will share some thoughts about just what "data" means.
>Just a few associated concepts I have used to have some
>grasp of this - a semantical network, if you will.
>I have no sources or proofs, no famous
>philosofer to refer you to.
>
<major chomp>
>
>Aside: From here (sign and meaning) on "up" (towards
>information, knowledge, insight, wisdom, action, ...)
>there is actually a lot of philosofical work and practical research.
>Disciplines:
>Semiotics, semiology and linguistics.
>(Note: no computer needed)
>
>Now, when we assign same or similar meanings to bitpatterns,
>most of the time conviniently represented by the same shape
>but evidently on another medium, we have computerdata,
>data for short.
>
>Finally, the rephrase of your question:
>How does the type of DBMS affect what we consider data?
>
Okay. That's actually a very good insight ...
Now I'm going to get into the difference between "relational theory" and "relational database theory" :-) Another analogy coming up - Linux and microkernels :-) Linus realised that all this research into "Microkernel Operating Systems" was actually just as applicable to "Operating Systems". I'm putting peoples' noses out of joint because, whether they realise it or not, they believe in "relational database theory" (think Tanenbaum saying he'd give Linus an F :-) And yet, I keep on saying Pick data should be normalised! So I'm actually very pro relational theory (just leave relational databases out of it! :-)
A Pick FILE is a real-world collective noun. What's a relational table?
A Pick RECORD is a real-world object. What's a relational row? A noun? An adjective? A gerund? (relation, for those who don't know their grammar)
A Pick FIELD is a real-world adjective. What's a relational column? An adjective? A gerund?
Because Pick's metaphysical layer is at a higher level than Relational Database Theory, we can then implement relational theory WITHIN our model without having the nasty spaghetti of a vague and undefined real-world interface. And I can righteously and reasonably throw my hands up in horror and tear my hair out when presented with a Pick database that hasn't been normalised :-)
So. Can anyone come up with a clear, simple, and NON-VAGUE definition of what "data" means when specified in a real-world, not a mathematical, context. Or come up with a perfectly good reason of why you don't have to! (Basically, because you've done it somewhere else, because you've got to do it somewhere!)
Cheers,
Wol
-- Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water. John W GardnerReceived on Mon May 17 2004 - 15:37:07 CEST