Re: Modelling Considered Harmful

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 22:12:26 +0200
Message-ID: <427e72a8$0$51153$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>

Paul wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:

>> Paul wrote:
>>>I agree that what we commonly refer to as "data modelling" is all about
>>>metadata, but I still think data itself is also about modelling.
>>
>>To the user of the data, yes, a model (if the database is any good).
>>To the DBMS it's meaningless signs to be cleverly kept - no model.

>
> OK I see what you're saying. Kind of like the database is just a
> "representation" of a model, rather than the model itself?
> Like Magritte and his "ceci n'est pas une pipe" again?

Wether something is a model or not depends on the context, not on the thing itself. Magritte played with that notion very nicely.

> But isn't the meta data also to the DBMS just "meaningless signs to be
> cleverly kept" as well?

Again, it depends on what the topic is.

> If you subscribe to the notion of humans being just extremely complex
> computers you could argue that all human knowledge is just meaningless
> signs kept in the brain as well.
>
> Straying into the metaphysical here but can a model or a set of
> propositions have an independent existence? The only way we know they
> exist is if we represent them in some way: as a database, as marks on
> paper, as sound waves in speech.

Heh. A shared illusion? Received on Sun May 08 2005 - 15:12:26 CDT