Re: meaningless data

Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:

> mAsterdam wrote:
>>Hugo Kornelis wrote:
>>>... are you even implying that
>>>there are people here who think (gasp!!) that the information in a
>>>database doesn't need to mean anything to it's users?
>>
>>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:
>>>
>>>>>Well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data ,
>>>>>under meaning of data and information,
>>>>>say "data on its own has no meaning".

[snip]

> ... somehow this "data has no meaning" idea has caught on.

Yes :-( They have all gone mad, not only in the state of Denmark. T'is pity, t'is true...

> I think we should put it in the cdt
> glossary with a more acceptable def of what data are.

Ok. I am going to need some help with that.

> I'll leave it to you
> to pick or write such a definition.

Wo! Not so fast :-)

There have been several threads regarding the meaning of data with a very high ((question + side issue)/(defining answer)) ratio. For now just a search for defining/describing remarks.

When, in a later post, I will condense it around the terms, as usual, I won't try
to keep the statements associated with their source, except where the source is outside cdt, of course.

Here is the harvest:

---------------------------------------------->

Anthony W. Youngman (PICK File, record, field)

   FILE: a real-world collective noun.
   RECORD: a real-world object.
   FIELD: is a real-world adjective.n.

mAsterdam (data)
> ... combination of sign and meaning we call data.

Chriss Hoess (data, data model, database)
> data models are artificial constructs and can
> never completely represent the true nature of information, and goes
on to
> provide various philosophical examples of recategorization.
> ... these categories already
> exist, to some degree, in the way information is handled. Databases
don't
> exist in vacuo; they're fed (and consulted) by users who would have some
> system of mental categorization even if they were shuffling everything
> around with paper and pencil. So while it may be philosophically
> interesting, the questions raised may not impinge directly on
> databases--except that we must recognize that the organization of data
> within a database can and will change with circumstances, and the
database
> should provide facilities for changing this structure with minimum
> inconvenience.

n++ k : (table, row, column)
table: A sentence that has not yet been uttered, because it relates "unknown values."
row: A statement of fact, as an utterance of the "meta" sentence described above.
column: any piece of utterable information.

x: (data)
> 1. facts
> 2. encoded information

x: (deduction)
> Deduction is a particular kind of inference.

Mike Nicewarner: (data, information)
> ... Data is defined as facts and that the facts could be encoded in
> some way. However, information is simply defined as data in context.
  For
> instance, a value of data could be 12. 12 by itself is data, but it
lacks
> meaning until you put it in context to say it is a specific baby's
weight at
> 1 year, taken at the doctor's office on a specific date. Then, the
date in
> the context becomes information that can be used. Much of the data
in a
> database is in a very limited and incomplete context, and is incorrectly
> called information, because of business assumptions about the missing
> context.

Alan: (data, database)
> From "Fundamentals of Database Systems", Elmasri & Navathe [some direct
> quote, some rephrased for brevity] :

 >

 >

Date/Codd: (information principle)
> Chris Date in "EDGAR F. CODD 08/23/1923 – 04/18/2003 A TRIBUTE":
> The entire information content of a relational database
> is represented in one and only one way: namely, as
> attribute values within tuples within relations.

[thread: WHAT vs HOW vs WHERE]
Bill H
> Anything that can be reduced to an electrical impulse?

mAsterdam (pointer, reference)
> A pointer points to a location (where).
> What your program will find there is up to the rest of the system.
> A reference references something (what).
> A program can get the current value
> of that something by dereferencing, even if that something has been
> relocated between the time of first reference and the dereferencing.
> References may be implemented (how) as pointers (and a lot of
> fragile computation).
> The programmer prefers not to know (if he prefers to
> know he should have used pointers).
> The program gets the value
> without ever knowing where the value resides.

Laconic2 (pointer)
> a pointer is an address, represented as a data
> value.

Dawn M. Wolthuis: (logical pointer)
> logical pointers as in navigational information from a foreign
> key in one relation to a primary key in another (effectively a mapping).

x: (address)
> An "address" (physical, logical, whatever) is used
> to *locate* something.
> A primary, foreign, candidate key is used to *identify* something.
> The problem is sometime (all the time ?) we use attributes
> that *locate* something for *identifying*.

Rene Hartmann (pointer, Java reference)
> A pointer is a special kind of type. One can declare variables of a
> pointer type, and these variables can have pointer values.

 >

 >

 >

 >

[Thread: It don't mean a thing...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data (data)
> <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>

Bill H (fact)
> 1. A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events
that have
> occurred.
> 2. A concept whose truth can be proved.
> 3. A statement or assertion of verified information.
> 4. An event known to have happened or something known to have existed.

Erik Kaun:
> data on its own does have meaning

mAsterdam (data)
> Data *has* (by definition) meaning.
> No use in talking about data by itself if it hasn't.

mAsterdam (meaning vs use)
> There is an important difference
> between meaning and use.

 >

 >


 >      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.



mountain man (data, meaning, use)

> 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).

> 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.

mAsterdam (information)
> (1) new data to the receptor.
> (2) relevant to some decision or action.

x (type)
> In The Third Manifesto a type is:
> - a pattern (possible rep)
> - a domain for some operators (THE_xxx operators)
> - a codomain for some operators (the "constructors")
> And there is a requirement for the 'domain' and the 'codomain' to be the
> same set.

x (data)
> a record on a medium of some fact in the 'real world'.

Dawn M. Wolthuis (data)
> ...data have meaning, expecially for our purposes when
> discussing data, but I understand the point of those
> who might suggest that the meaning isn't in the symbols,
> but is, rather, communicated by them.

Brian Inglis (data, meaning through type)
> If the wiki definition said untyped or something similar, I'd agree
> with the definition, but as it stands, it's too unspecific.
> It really depends what you mean by data, and at what level:
> data has no meaning at the machine bits, bytes, words level;
> data gains meaning at higher levels of abstraction, as it gains
> tighter and tighter definitions of type.

<----------------------------------------------

Obviously, we are not going to retain all subtleties :-) Received on Sun Jun 06 2004 - 09:13:30 CEST