Re: RM's Canonical database

Bob Badour wrote:
> Dan wrote:

[snip]
> > 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.
>
> Every human artifact is artificial including language and definitions.
> That said, the definition I gave was the only pertinent definition
> within the context of the subthread when I gave it. It was the only
> sensible interpretation of Frans' unqualified use of the term 'data';
> although, he clearly was too ignorant and too full of shit to realise
> what he was saying.
>
> The semantic information definition, the information theory definition
> and the signal processing definition had no sensible application to the
> statement that 'data' belong in a database:
>
> A database is a passive set of facts. It does not communicate, and it
> has no signal to process. Further, because it is a set of facts and
> because facts have meaning, the semantic information definition that
> data has no meaning clearly had no application or useful interpretation.
>
>
Granted. I was never arguing with the validity of your definition in the first place. I was perplexed by Frans's challenge, but as I said noted as a preface to my statements before and as Frans confirmed in response, it was provocation with little intent for insight or real discussion.

[snip]
> >>
> >>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.
>
> Do you see why it was the only sensible definition to apply to Frans'
> statement that 'data' belong in a database?

Of course I do.
>
>
> 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 disagree. Knowing the difference between data and information is very
> informative. Without that understanding, one will not really appreciate
> the difference between conceptual analysis and logical design. One will
> not really appreciate the concept of an external predicate either. One
> will not appreciate the inherent limition of all formalisms as expressed
> by Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem and why that limitation is not as
> limiting as some might suggest.

Ok. I agree with you (vehemently).
>
> Then, I must ask: What do you hope to achieve by agreeing with me so
> vehemently?
>
I always was agreeing with you within the context of the thread. My response was to Frans and his challenge to your definitions.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Is it insecurity that makes you think anyone is trying to do that?
>

No.

> This is a topic where precision is important and where self-aggrandizing
> ignorants and snake-oil salesmen like Frans' make nonsense statements
> with great frequency and apparent conviction. If one is forced to hear
> them, I think the skill to identify their nonsense is an important skill
> to have.
>
> In order to do that, one has to have a good grasp of all the definitions
> of the terms they use and when those definitions apply. Do you disagree?
>
No.

>
> Too many make this
> > claim of authoritative definition and I've learned not to accept such
> > as face value.
>
> Are you saying you have problems with authority?

Yes.

Knowing 1) the precise
> definitions of a word, 2) the precise contexts in which the various
> definitions apply and 3) the ways people frequently misuse a word give
> one power over authority and freedom from arbitrary authority.
>
True.
>
> 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.
>
> Frans has demonstrated repeatedly that he is a self-aggrandizing
> ignorant and a snake-oil salesman. His responses should in no way affect
> the thinking of intelligent, rational, educated people.
>
>
> The terms and the distinction between them are way too
> > abused.
>
> Absolutely, I agree. The semantic information definition appeals to
> managers who mostly come from sales, marketing or administrative
> backgrounds. While they don't really understand the philosophy either,
> the idea that data has no meaning lets them off the hook for not
> understanding computing science, data processing or information technology.
>
Yep. This is the very source of my reaction. Sorry to distract from the essence of the discussion.

Regards,

Dan Received on Mon Jul 03 2006 - 21:15:47 CEST