Re: cdt glossary 0.1.0 [Data]

"Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>Yeah, that wikipedia article is pretty lame. I found this gem in
>there, also: "data is unstructured."

But worse, you have said it is unordered. Thus all the back and forth, and then name calling, correct?

Again, it's an important point.

Remember your assertion:

When I said: It must hold to its proper order. It means nothing without it.

You replied: The wc example refutes this.

To which I stated the obvious: Then consider this very message the counter-example.

And it's true, here, as well. Jumble up the order of the words, phrases and sentences in this message, right here, at the very least it just doesn't say the same thing. The data is corrupted. The meaning is lost. The data is lost. This is such a basic notion, that I find it difficult to believe that ANYONE would think otherwise.

Structure must be accounted. But then as with so many terms, leading to mAsterdam's revision of this glossary, people talk past each other because a) the same words can refer to somewhat different senses/notions in different contexts and b) different words can be used to describe the same thing.

I, too, would like to see some of this 'nailed down', as someone put it. If I say - structure must be accounted - I'd like to think that you understand at least what is meant. If you say - structure must be accounted - I would like to think I knew how you meant that. And so on. Received on Fri Feb 24 2006 - 23:49:25 CET