| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: RM's Canonical database
Frans Bouma 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
> > This is certainly a provocative question. Are you sure there is a
> > definitive answer?
>> don't doubt bobby knows what the difference is, and I also don't care
> Dan, it was a sarcastic question, rethoric if you will. Of course I
I don't think anybody necessarily knows the difference in a universal sense, despite claims to to contrary. That is the point.
> > This is big-time business intelligence vendor software buzzword stuff.
>> the difference between data and information is the core of what
> You mean the difference between data and information? I think not,
Then please express it.
>> domain specific logic vs... vs. ... then there's a lot of crap cooked
> If you mean: business logic vs. business rules vs. validation code vs.
Sure, anything that can be written on a piece of paper as a process that effectively achieves some ends can be implmented in a computing system.
>> whatever you want to call them, only within niches (DDD niche, SOA
> The thing is that there's not a uniform name for these 'rules' or
>
>> dictionary impaired:
> I think we all can handle a dictionairy, don't you? :). For the
>> correct. You CREATE information from data. Data by itself isn't
> When someone says "data IS information blabla", then that's not
But this isn't precise nor general enough to be of use to anybody. Any data held in a computing system is by definition processable in some way by the system. If it is processable, it is interpretable by something. If it is interpretable, then it conveys some logic or meaning to some receiver, even if it doesn't make sense to a human.
Moreover, if we think of data as raw input in some form, representation, or format that is unprocessed and information as the interpreted output as knowledge of that data, and we provide that interpreted output as raw input for another communication process, the information suddenly is data again and not necessarily information, no?
I still find the distinction extremely muddled, convenience for those not wishing to think deeply about the issue or accept definitions at face value notwithstanding.
>
>> the case. For example OLAP queries aren't part of the data you also use
> that suggests the mechanism is part of the data. I don't think that's
>> > information? Are prepositions data or information? Is there any such
> > Doesn't better data give us better
When it is interpreted. If we restrict it to interpretation by humans, fine. But this is an arbitrary distinction.
>> > interface is data suddenly considered information, or is it
> > 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
>> obtained by interpretation of input of 0 or more units of data. That
> I don't think its related to humans. I see information as the value
Agreed.
>> > such as artifcial intelligence been such colossal failures, while
> > 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
>> fill big databases and AI is still 'vague stuff' for a lot of people ?
> well, because data-rich is easy to sell to big corp's with the need to
>> threads NO-ONE from the c.d.t. newsgroup has brought up OLAP, something
> Related to this, it's amazing that in the couple of c.o-c.d.t. shared
>> > as true prepositions are. Why would the distinction between
> > 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
>> information from the cold, static, boring data and it's therefore very
> because the logic which forms your app makes it possible to harvest
Hmmm. How does one derive information without logic and reasoning in the first place? Does data exist without logic and reasoning? I find the distinction utterly distracting in this context.
>
> FB
>
 |
 |