Re: It don't mean a thing ...
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 08:59:20 +0200
mountain man wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>>mountain man 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> >>>>Does it have a source? >>>>Is it bad? >> >>>The word "meaning" is critical here. Meaning to whom? >>>I'd probably guess that this meaning is with respect to >>>the organization which has assembled the data, the systems, >>>the users, etc. So using this ... >>> >>>IMO the statement is accurate, but should be >>>generalised further: data on its own not only has >>>no meaning but is absolutely useless without the >>>corresponding application layer by which it is >>>constantly maintained. >>
>>Is it bits & bytes? Does, in your view, shared data >>constitute, by definiton, information?
> What we call data is stored by the OS on the HW
> by the RDBMS as bits and bytes.
The emergence of bit and bytes changed
the way we can handle data (meaningful data, of course - sigh - should I add this everey time I use the word data? - I'ld rather not). When we handle data them with computers we can say computer data, most of the time that is a little overly specific so we simply say data. Should the definition of data change because of this change in the way we handle them? For what purpose?
> It is maintained
> by means of the application software directing the
> RDBMS and is presented to the user in the organisation
> be means of the application software.
> A DBA might like to think that the application layer is
> not required, and if it was missing, then if the DBA had
> sufficient resources, perhaps the DBA could perform
> the role of the application layer and need only the RDBMS
> layer and the data for limited instances, but not for the
> entire organisation.
We both encountered this way of thinking. Not only DBA think this way (and luckily not all DBA). I've seen people creating some datamodel + CRUDs, actually thinking they created an application. They did not. I think we are on the same track regarding this.
> Those in this forum who like to think that the data is of
> meaning and use (to an organisation) without the application
> layer should sit in an organisation alongside the database
> and ask themselves how the needs of that organisation
> with respect to the data are going to be met without the
> application layer.
> If the application layer is thieved overnight off a system
> the organisation cannot get at the data in the manner that
> they are accustomed, and the organisation will ground to
> a halt, until that app layer is replaced.
> The data is far more critical, of course, and if someone
> thieved the data, then the organisation would be searching
> for a backup of that data, and would grind to a halt until
> that data is replaced.
> Theory and practice are complimentary. Relational
> theory might like to consider that the data has
> independent meaning, but practical theory
> does not as it is fully aware that the system
> consists of integrated elements, the data
> being one of these.
Sorry, I don't really get this. Where does relational theory come into play? Are you saying relational theory defines data as having meaning? Received on Wed Jun 02 2004 - 08:59:20 CEST