Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: It don't mean a thing ...

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

From: mountain man <>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 03:20:05 GMT
Message-ID: <FNwvc.3364$>

"mAsterdam" <> wrote in message news:40bdd7e5$0$560$
> mountain man wrote:

...[big trim]...

> > 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.
> In short: the stuff is managed differently so
> you need to redefine it?

Absolutely. I am assuming we agree that the reprsentation of data within a person, within an organization and with a computer system all needs to be managed in a different fashion.

> >>>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.
> Practically, yes.
> > 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?
> There is an important difference
> between meaning and use.
> Say we currently have a validated statement
> about the exchange rate of some stock at some
> recent time.
> 1. It does not matter to the meaning
> where/how this statement is represented. We have it.
> 2. To the use of it it is important where/how
> it is represented, and available to relevant actors.
> 3. Twenty years later the meaning of this statement
> is still the same.
> 4. Twenty years later most of its usefullness will
> probably have gone.

I think we sort of agree here, except I guess I am pushing more towards a definition where the meaning of the data and its usefulness are somehow related, and that it may be --- in some instances -- not appropriate to separate the distinction.

Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz Received on Wed Jun 02 2004 - 22:20:05 CDT

Original text of this message