Re: Two examples of semi structured data.
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 01:19:36 +0200
Message-ID: <412a7b8d$0$25965$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Jan Hidders wrote:
> 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.
> [...] It is nowhere claimed that there is data
> that is meaningless from *all* perspectives.
Of course not. Who would claim such a thing? What is meaningful to some is rubbish to others. Say a database is "a logically coherent collection of related real-world data". Surely not all data must be meaningful to all of it's users - so either there must be something (a perspective?) to unify those perspectives - or we are talking multiple databases - which of course some may find very interesting, but doesn't have my particular attention unless I'm getting paid for it.
>>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.
>
> Hmm, no, I would also disagree there. The database does contain data which
> in turn carries information. What this information is may or may not be
> of concern to the database. So from that perspective it is indeed
> primarily a collection of data. Also note that if it becomes more
> important what the information is then the term knowledge base becomes
> more appropriate, which is largely synonymous with information base.
Yep, the word inflation rate competes with the money inflation rate.
>>>>[...] 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? :-)
Exactly. And semi-closed world, of course.
>>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.
Yep.
Let's zoom in some more:
Not caring about meaning, we can change structure
without affecting the signs:
"The secret agent walked into the room."
"The agent walked into the secret room."
and we can change both signs and structure,
and yet convey the same meaning:
"At 4:05 pm tomorrow the doors will open"
"The doors will open tomorrow at 16:05"
>>>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?
>
> Of course we can. Why does that surprise you? If I first send you "Harry,
> 43" and then "<name>Harry</name><shoesize>43</shoesize>" then you will
> probably know more after the second message. Note that no change of
> agreement is necessary.
Not trying to disqualify the use of tags, though. They are very useful. They do help to make data out of signs :-) Received on Tue Aug 24 2004 - 01:19:36 CEST