Re: database systems and organizational intelligence
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 17:20:20 +0200
Message-ID: <40bb4d2b$0$560$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>>Laconic2 wrote:
>>>mAsterdam wrote:
>>>>>Storing and retrieving are lose words because nothing is stored nor
>>>>>retrieved. Data can't be stored because it is not a physical object.
[snip]
>>The physical representation, real,
>>only contains signs and media, not meaning.
>>Data IMO encompasses meaning.
>>So, in order to retrieve data from the rosetta stone, we need to
>>interpret the carvings (being shapes on media a.k.a. signs).
>>
>>I don't see how somebody who takes the position
>>that only physical objects exist would be able
>>to make similar distinctions.
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 17:20:20 +0200
Message-ID: <40bb4d2b$0$560$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
x wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>>Laconic2 wrote:
>>>mAsterdam wrote:
>>>>>Storing and retrieving are lose words because nothing is stored nor
>>>>>retrieved. Data can't be stored because it is not a physical object.
[snip]
>>The physical representation, real,
>>only contains signs and media, not meaning.
>>Data IMO encompasses meaning.
>>So, in order to retrieve data from the rosetta stone, we need to
>>interpret the carvings (being shapes on media a.k.a. signs).
>>
>>I don't see how somebody who takes the position
>>that only physical objects exist would be able
>>to make similar distinctions.
> > Well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data , under meaning of data and > information, say "data on its own has no meaning".
Well, "The wikimedia.org servers are currently overloaded, or down.", but I have no reason to doubt you. I anticipate/speculate that they define information as data + meaning, whereas in actual contexts the words are used in a completely different fashion. This overly opportunistic 'I choose the words to mean whatever I need them to mean in order to be right (or consistent) about this specific context' attitude is IMHO one of the causes of the current conceptual mess.
Can we really discuss database while agreeing upon a definition of data which says data ('on its own') have no meaning? I don't think so. Received on Mon May 31 2004 - 17:20:20 CEST