meaningless data (was: Relations as Repeating Groups & Namespaces)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 00:19:04 +0200
Message-ID: <40c246d1$0$48959$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Hugo Kornelis wrote:
> No, I'm not attracted to Nijssen's "kenniskunde" (how on earth would one
Knowledgeology?
> ... are you even implying that
Yes. Gasp indeed. When people discuss data in the context
of database, they are talking of something with meaning.
At least, that is what I thought until
> x wrote:
No source of this statement was mentioned at wikipedia.
I was even more amazed when I found that this statement
is copied all over the web. People will think this is an
accepted way of using the term 'data'.
I am not an acknowledged guru
> translate THAT in English?) at all.
> there are people here who think (gasp!!) that the information in a
> database doesn't need to mean anything to it's users?
>>> Well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data ,
>>> under meaning of data and information,
>>> say "data on its own has no meaning".
>
> <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>
who could barge in at wikipedia and say: Hey guys,
you got it all wrong, your understanding of data
and information stinks.
I should at least be able to offer a better description.
So I asked c.d.theory what to think of it.
(Thread: It don't mean a thing...)
news://news.xs4all.nl:119/40bc8896$0$36861$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl
In the meantime I did create an account at wikipedia. I'll try to find out how things work there. As soon as I feel up to it (your comments may help) I'll try opening a discussion there to get that statement reconsidered. Received on Sun Jun 06 2004 - 00:19:04 CEST