Re: RM's Canonical database

guntermann_at_verizon.net wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
>

>>Dan wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>
>>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.

Which is the information theory definition and not the computing science definition.

> They go on to state that the "world is full of facts, some discovered
> and some remaining to be discovered. These become information when
> they are used in some way. This is the fundamental connection between
> information and communication: a fact only becomes a useful as
> information when it is communicated."
>
> One could summarize these authors' distinctions between data and
> information as to whether or not it is communicable and received
> correctly, implying a process of encoding, transport, and
> interpretation by a receiver, whether human or non-human.

And if we were talking about a telephone switching system, the definition would be relevant. I thought I was very clear that information theory and signal processing use different definitions. Was I not clear enough?

> This is very similar to the vein of information theory.

It is in fact identical to it.

>>>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.

Within the context of newsgroups beginning with comp. (and especially any relating to data), the definition I gave is the standard definition. For one to use a different definition, such as the information theory definition or the signal processing definition, one would have to state the context explicitly (unless the context was already very clear.)

Because computing touches so many other fields, one must do this from time to time. For example, if one is writing a median filter for a graphics program, one might need to use the signal processing definition wherein thermal noise is information.

However, within the context of this discussion, the definition I gave above is the relevant definition and the standard definition. By failing to even recognize it as a valid definition, Frans proved his profound ignorance of one of the most fundamental and informative definitions within our field.

> A theoritical treatise written originally in French might be full of
> information, but to me it does not constitute much information that is
> "processable" at all. By the same token, a table in a document might
> contain data as facts, but not be necessarily in a 'digitized' form nor
> processable by a computing processor. Your definition of data would
> exclude this as data and classify it only as information, but other
> definitions, including many dictionaries, would define those facts as
> data.

I disagree. I suggest you try to get ahold of 2382-01 before making absurd claims about the standard definitions for information technology. If you can, try to peruse some of the other relevant documents from the series. Received on Mon Jul 03 2006 - 15:14:37 CEST