Re: RM's Canonical database

From: Dan <guntermann_at_verizon.net>
Date: 2 Jul 2006 18:02:56 -0700
Message-ID: <1151888576.392964.87980_at_m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>


Frans Bouma wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
> > Ron Jeffries wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 11:27:17 +0200, mAsterdam
> > > <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Robert Martin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ... business rules don't belong in the database.
> > > >
> > > > What, in your opinion, does belong in the database?
> > >
> > > Uh ... data?
> >
> > 'Data' is information represented suitably for machine processing. In
> > what way are business rules not information or not represented
> > suitably for machine processing?
>
> Bob, are you now suggesting that you don't know the difference between
> data and information? No don't bother looking up a Dijkstra quote on
> that.
>
> FB
This is certainly a provocative question. Are you sure there is a definitive answer?

This is big-time business intelligence vendor software buzzword stuff. Please, enlighten us on the difference between data and information. What is the purpose of data if it doesn't give us some mechanism of interpretation as information? Doesn't better data give us better information? Are prepositions data or information? Is there any such thing as information without data? Where does the line lie (the clearly delineated big thick black one) that distinguishes data from information? In other words, at what level of abstraction and interface is data suddenly considered information, or is it contextually dependent on the human receptor? Why is "information theory" in the classical computer science sense natural language semantics ignorant (atrophy using binary encondings, etc.) yet still called "information" theory? Why have "information rich" disciplines such as artifcial intelligence been such colossal failures, while "data rich" disciplines enjoy a measure of success?

Since the answers to these questions are apparently self-evident, please share.

Business rules as logic can be represented symbolically, just as a natural language would do less efficiently, and then have manipulations of them mechanized by a computing system, just as facts as true prepositions are. Why would the distinction between information and data come into play here?

Thanks,

Dan Received on Mon Jul 03 2006 - 03:02:56 CEST

Original text of this message