Re: RM's Canonical database
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 01:38:38 GMT
Message-ID: <yy_pg.5492$pu3.123114_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Dan 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
Here is further evidence that Frans is a self-aggrandizing ignorant. My statement above indicates that I fully understand the difference between data and information as far as computing and information technology are concerned. In fact, my sentence above basically restates the definitions for 'information' and 'data' available from ISO/IEC 2382-01 Standard Vocabulary for Information Technology.
If I recall correctly, information and data are definitions 2382-01.01 and 2382-01.02 in that standard. In other words, in the view of the folks who created the standard, they are the two most fundamental definitions in our profession.
The meaning of 'information' is subtly different in the context of information theory, in the context of signal processing, or finally in the context of semantic information.
However, we are not doing information theory, signal processing or philosophy here. We are doing computing science.
> This is certainly a provocative question. Are you sure there is a
> definitive answer?
See above.
> 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?
Self-aggrandizing ignorants--especially snake-oil salesment--are rather fond of tossing around buzzwords they pick up from philosophers they all pretend to have read and don't ever have a chance of understanding. Hence the abuse of 'paradigm', 'information' and others.
> 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?
It comes into play as soon as one formally specifies a business rule in a form suitable for machine processing. Before that moment, it is information but not data. After that moment, it is both. Received on Mon Jul 03 2006 - 03:38:38 CEST