Re: RM's Canonical database
Date: 3 Jul 2006 10:21:59 -0700
Message-ID: <1151947319.256038.211110_at_m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Bob Badour wrote:
> 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
> >>
[snip]
> >>
> >>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.
> >
> > This is but two of the definitions used for data and information in the
> > computing sciences. For example, a book I have, called "Information
> > Technology - Inside and Out", by Cyganzski, Orr, and Vaz, use the
> > definition of 'information' as:
> >
> > "Knowledge communicated or received concerning some fact or
> > circumstance; news..".
>
> Which is the information theory definition and not the computing science
> definition.
>
The authors began with a standard dictionary definition.
>> > correctly, implying a process of encoding, transport, and
> > 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
> > 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?
No, you were very clear Bob. I think the distinction might be somewhat artificial though for a variety of reasons. But that is merely my opinion.
> >
> > This is very similar to the vein of information theory.
>
> It is in fact identical to it.
> >> > definition within some well defined context. It's just not the only
> >>>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.
> >
> > I don't find this distinction as useful as others might, though I won't
> > argue the fact that they might be entirely valid when stated as a
> > definition, and I find others more useful.
>
> 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.)
I understand your definition and desire to use it Bob. But propositional and predicate logic never had to make this distinction in order to work with facts, information, and knowledge, so making the distinction now seems to muddy the water.
I now deal with "information architects" and I am at a loss as to what role and value they provide in contrast to "data architects" or other computing specialties. They know very little about the data, but claim to know a lot about information. This simply doesn't make sense.
>
> 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,
Sure. I will accept that. I recognize it as a valid definition, but not as the only definition.
>> > definitions, including many dictionaries, would define those facts as
> > 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
> > 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.
Bob, I will try to get ahold of the 2382-01 definitions, but I am not inclined to have someone else's perception of the one and only acceptable definition force fed down my throat. Too many make this claim of authoritative definition and I've learned not to accept such as face value. Frans's response seems to indicate a different take on the definitions and thus this reinforces my claim that the definition of data and information is not as definitive and self-evident as some may claim. The terms and the distinction between them are way too abused.
Thanks,
Dan Received on Mon Jul 03 2006 - 19:21:59 CEST