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

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:52:21 +0200
Message-ID: <40bd089b$0$36169$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>

Brian Inglis 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>

>
>
> ISTM it's just the very old statement that a string of bits or bytes
> by itself has no semantic content, but it gains semantics when it is
> interpreted as a type: characters, an integer, or an FP number.

(Type as 'valid set of values' - please correct me if you use another definition) The only semantics it gains by being interpreted as a type is being member of a set.

> In a database context, data gains additional meaning when it is stored
> in a column of a table, because it not only gains a type, it then also
> expresses a fact about some entity.

> IMHO given some common knowledge about an application domain, and a
> data model for that application domain, the only meaning that can not
> be derived is the current significance of that data to the
> organization, and the (complex, correlated, current ;^>) rules that
> organization applies to the data.

Do you think the definition at wikipedia is flawed? I guess that would also be a possible outcome of this thread, having read the replies up to now. Received on Tue Jun 01 2004 - 17:52:21 CDT