Re: Two examples of semi structured data.
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:01:23 GMT
Message-ID: <pan.2004.08.23.20.03.23.376349_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be>
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:42:18 +0200, mAsterdam wrote:
> Jan Hidders wrote:
>> mAsterdam wrote: >>>Jan Hidders wrote: >>>>mAsterdam wrote: >>>> >>>>[...] Serge argues that sometimes, from a particular viewpoint [...] >>>>you are really not interested in any structure that may or may not be >>>>hidden in a particular stream of bits; they are just a stream of bits >>>>and that's it. >>> >>>That's it. No data, right? Signs. >> >> Yes. Or as it is usually taught in academia: "No information, just >> data."
>
> [....]
>
> In those terms: The authors are talking potentially informationless
> data.
That's not how I would put it. They are talking about data that is informationless *from a certain perspective*. It is nowhere claimed that there is data that is meaningless from *all* perspectives.
> Well, then let's try to talk about informationbases - hmm... doesn't
> sound good. Nah database is fine, C<provided the data means something> -
> thus departing from this habit.
>>>[...] The only structure we now know is structure imposed on the signs >>>to be stored or forwarded or represented. This structure does not >>>determine meaning, neither is it determined by meaning. Buzzword >>>bingoish: it is orthogonal to meaning. >> >> No, it is not orthogonal because it can be, and usually is, the carrier >> of meaning.
>
> [semi-orthogonal ?]
Semi-pregnant? :-)
> Let's zoom in here:
> The store/forward structure carries the signs. Can we or can we not
> change that structure whithout affecting the stored/transported signs?
> Can we change the signs without affecting the conveyed meaning?
Not without agreeing first on what the new interpretation is of the structures and the signs.
>> I could send a simple string with flat text or I could add structure in >> the form of XML mark-up and then send it to you. If we have agreed >> before on what this markup means then the added structure will add >> additional meaning.
>
> ??? Are you suggesting we can add meaning without changing the
> agreement?
>> It's almost as if you have a deep psychological need to have everything >> structured.
>
> [...] Let's not engage in remote psycho-analysis on the
> basis of postings.
I thought the smiley wouldn't be necessary. Apparently I was wrong. :-)
- Jan Hidders