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

"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:40bed9bb$0$15440$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> 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.

Your line of argument appears to be setting up a polarity such that data either has, or has not, meaning intrinsic to itself, and I dont know that this is the best approach.

> The difference boils down to wether data
> has an existence independent of where it is.

IMO, the "meaning" of the data is always contextual. The same bit of data means different things to different structured viewpoints within the organization, for example, and at different times (epochs).

> Can a person, an organization and a computer
> system have the same piece of data?

My PO Box number 194, for instance. A person can have this data element, as could an organization, and it could be stored on a computer. They each store representations of this "fact", not the fact itself. The data is the representation of the fact.

> Answer based on a definition without meaning (wikipedia): no.
> Answer based on a definiton the includes meaning: yes.

I think the question presupposes a binary optioned answer whereas I work by scales of grey ;-)

If there is sufficient cause for a person or an organization to record an element of data, on a computer, then there will of course exist some meaning for that data element (at that specific time, in that context).

This meaning may well relate to future use of this data.

> 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?

In one sense the sameness might be said to exist in the external world, which we observe and reflect upon and categorise.

The box numbered 194 at the local post office here cost me $55 until next January, and consists of a showbox sized space with mainly air inside, and a door and lock.

I have written 194 written on the key, and on the back of my hand so as to remember this, and I have entered it on the computer so that a return postal address is available for my correspondence.

> 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.

It has meaning, but that meaning I dont think is any great and ultimate absolute meaning, rather some form of relative and contextual meaning that is derived from the commonly agreed and perceived average of viewpoints.

One grain of sand does not form a beach. One bit of data itself has little meaning. It is rather the collective of all data that possesses greater notion of meaning.

> [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
> > related,
>
> 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.

Only that database integrity is a maintenance task. Change is natural. Updating the database to reflect the external world is necessary if you have not been in communication with the external world (for a specific subset of clients, for example) recently.

BTW, thanks for the refences to
http://www.essentialstrategies.com
I look forward to reading this stuff.
Interesting stuff.

Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz Received on Thu Jun 03 2004 - 13:54:39 CEST