Re: It don't mean a thing ...
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:23:45 GMT
"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message
> mountain man wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>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.
> So, Newton had no data you (plural) can speak of.
> What did he have?
Enter Newton, stage right. ?
OK, well Newton has his ideas and intelligence and other
human faculties and perceptions, but he did not have
any computer data processing system or database.
He had no computerised data.
OK, well Newton has his ideas and intelligence and other human faculties and perceptions, but he did not have any computer data processing system or database. He had no computerised data.
> 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?
I am not sure what you are saying. Data is not the same as it was 100 years ago, today it is managed within a computer system. 100 years ago it may have been managed by a quill, ink and paper scrolls.
> > 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.
> I like to think that data is of meaning and use with
> and without computers.
Philosophically, the data in the external world that is relevant to an organization's processes will be represented within the organization's database. In this sense it will always have use and meaning without computers.
But is we restrict consideration only to the computerised data (hey, business is business) then for how many days will this data (database) be meaningful and useful without being maintained by the system?
Oz Received on Wed Jun 02 2004 - 14:23:45 CEST