Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:02:26 GMT
Message-ID: <6y%Eg.50337$pu3.587551@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Marshall wrote:
> Keith H Duggar wrote:
>

>>It probably is off-topic, however, for general usage I'm
>>forced to partly agree with Dawn that the various *ML's do
>>have semi-structure.

>
> Well, I would draw a distinction between "general usage"
> and technical usage.
>
> And this does all circle back to my recurring point about
> definitions: anyone can make one; they are intrinsically
> neither right nor wrong. However, some definitions are
> more formally made and sometimes more authoritatively
> endorsed. If we agree that some term has some definition,
> we can usefully use that to communicate.

Why do you folks bother with anything posted by the self-aggrandizing ignorants? Dawn has you chasing your tails. Why reward her?

> In the context of data management (which is in fact our
> current context in this NG) I expect the term "structured
> data" to mean something more specific than I might if
> I used the term with Aunt Mildred.

'Structure' means different things in different contexts. Logical data models (formalisms) specify structures for representation along with operations for manipulation and integrity. Physical structures contain things and alter performance characteristics. Possible representations provide structured formal descriptions of values.

One really cannot effectively use the term 'structured' without providing contextual clarity.

The usage of 'unstructured' and 'semi-structured' as excuses for abandoning the relational model in favour of primitive hierarchies and networks has already been debunked. Only self-aggrandizing ignorants like Dawn would bother with the terms.

[snip]

> What about plain English text? How "structured" is
> the Declaration of Independence, A Shropshire Lad,
> the wikipedia entry for Obi-wan Kenobi, or this post?

See "grammar".

[snip] Received on Thu Aug 17 2006 - 10:02:26 CDT