Re: It don't mean a thing ...
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:52:21 +0200
Message-ID: <40bd089b$0$36169$e4fe514c_at_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.
<duck reason="anti entity inquisition"> Yep. </duck>
> 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 Wed Jun 02 2004 - 00:52:21 CEST