Re: Mixing OO and DB

"JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message news:a9f5a3a7-8330-4831-9f1d-ba16b8ccfdbe_at_e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 2:06 am, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 9:53 pm, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> > [snip]

> > Our point of contention is rather that I suggest that most generally
> > the data is nothing other than encoded values, and doesn't necessarily
> > convey any facts. I'm assuming that the knowledge implicit in the
> > encoding of the data is by definition not part of the data itself,
> > whereas I think you are suggesting it is part of the data.
>
> Yes I think that's an excellent breakdown. Its all just down to where
> we draw the lines I guess...
> Brian: Data is encoded values. I need to know externally what they
> represent.
> Jim: Data is encoded values plus an denotation of what they represent.
>

David: Data is appearances of encoded values plus a reference to an understanding of what they represent.

This is a little hazier than Jim's definition above. The "reference to an understanding" might be insufficient for formal analysis of what the data represents, but sufficient to persuade all interested parties that they have a common understanding of the data that's good enough for sharing purposes.

Our resident court jester, Dawn, no longer posts to this forum. But I can't resist quoting one of her (in)famous comments: "The data means whatever the programmers want it to mean".

The two problem words in the above are "programmers" and "want". Received on Wed Feb 13 2008 - 14:54:33 CET