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

mountain man wrote:

> mAsterdam wrote: in message
>>mountain man wrote:

>>>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.

Yes, we agree.

S1: "the representation of data within a person, within an organization and with a computer system all needs to be managed in a different fashion."

Please join me in zooming in to the difference with regard to meaning (not use). Let's ceteris paribus interpret the sentence with the competing concepts of data:

• no meaning: If data does not need to have meaning the above sentence speaks of three different, maybe even uncomparable things/sets of things. What it is in a person, an organization, a computer system is clear. Synaptic activity, writings, bit and bytes. How these three relate is not clear.
• meaning: If data *has* meaning it speaks of the same (or at least mappable) things/sets of things, needing a different representation and a different type of management. Were it is matters, but we are still talking about the same data.

The difference boils down to wether data has an existence independent of where it is. Can a person, an organization and a computer system have the same piece of data?
Answer based on a definition without meaning (wikipedia): no. Answer based on a definiton the includes meaning: yes.

To me S1 (from your statement) appears to reject a definition of data excluding meaning, even in your view. How could something need different representation and type of management depending on where it is if it isn't somehow the same thing? Where is the sameness?

Obviously I do not mind that, because I'ld want to say: Hey! That's wrong! Data *has* (by definition) meaning. No use in talking about data by itself if it hasn't.

[snip]
>>>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

Data and its usefulness are definitely related, also in my view.

 > and that it may be --- in some instances --  > not appropriate to separate the distinction.

I'm curious about your thoughts on that. Received on Thu Jun 03 2004 - 09:56:52 CEST