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

"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:40bc8896$0$36861$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> x wrote:
> >> Well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data ,
> >> under meaning of data and information,
> >> say "data on its own has no meaning".
>
> <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>
>
> Googling for this statement showed me
> that some serious copy & pasting of it
> has been going on. Does it have a source?
> Do you (posters - and lurkers - of c.d.theory)
> subscribe to this point of view?
> Is it bad?
>
> Please share your opinion.
>
> To not let you in the dark about mine I'll repeat:
>
> 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.

Perhaps it is like saying that books, on their own, have no meaning?

Maybe the issue is whether there is meaning where there is no human being. Of course the data have meaning in that the author takes what they "mean" and translates it into data/symbols. The computer (software) translates and store the data in other symbols, then translates back to the original symbols when the data are requested. Then the reader reads meaning into the data, hopefully close to the original intended meaning for the symbols. Was the meaning in the symbols or in the people?

I think it is most useful to say that books and data have meaning, expecially for our purposes when discussing data, but I understand the point of those who might suggest that the meaning isn't in the symbols, but is, rather, communicated by them.

--dawn Received on Tue Jun 01 2004 - 19:47:37 CEST