Re: Mixing OO and DB

On Feb 14, 2:04 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> JOG wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 3:52 am, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> >>On Feb 13, 9:56 pm, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>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]
>
> >>>>>Consider /unallocated/ RAM in your PC. Look at 5 contiguous bits at
> >>>>>random. Are you telling me that the binary number you are looking at
> >>>>>is "data"? I'd accept that it is a value (albeit a meaningless one)
> >>>>>but "data"? You really think that?
>
> >>>>No I don't.
>
> >>>>When data is recorded on some medium there is a lot of implicit
> >>>>*knowledge* about how it has been encoded. This knowledge has to
> >>>>account for all sorts of details, such as what designates a 1 versus a
> >>>>0. How many bits in a word? What order do they appear in? Is there
> >>>>an address bus? How is the address bus organised? The binary
> >>>>encoding is only a tiny part of it. Obviously we both agree that all
> >>>>that knowledge is implicit in correctly decoding the data.
>
> >>>Yes I broadly agree apart from on one key matter (there's a suprise
> >>>eh) - "knowledge is implict". I contend the exact opposite, and this
> >>>is my whole point really. The knowledge required must be explicit.
> >>>That's what makes otherwise random noise, or values, data. In the
> >>>case of a scientist log book for example what the data means is
> >>>explicit in a title at the top of the page or in the scientist's
> >>>head.
>
> >>You can't make the knowledge explicit because you can't formalise it.
>
> >>>Another example:
> >>>"todays lottery numbers: 23, 34, 17"
> >>>"experimental reults: 23, 34, 17"
>
> >>>Same values, different data. If you agree with this statement then
> >>>values != data surely?
>
> >>You seem to have forgotten that I said data was associated with the
> >>appearance (ie encoding) of values.
>
> > Nicely dodged, but let me try again!
>
> > "todays lottery numbers: 23, 34, 17"
> > "experimental results: 23, 34, 17"
>
> > All written down on a bit of paper - same values discussed, but
> > different data. Agree or disagree?
>
> > I ask this because if we can distinguish data and values, we must then
> > determine /how/ they are different. You state it is by "encoding" but
> > the two lines above are encoded in the same manner as far as I am
> > concerned, so that cannot be the difference between the two concepts.
> > That is unless your "Encodings" equates to my notion of "Facts", and
> > we are thus agreeing loudly, using different definitions of those
> > terms.
>
> >>Encodings have a context, and
> >>values do not. We don't disagree on whether data is associated with
> >>encodings. Rather we disagree on what is being encoded. I say data =
> >>encoded values. (I think) you say data = encoded facts.
>
> >>>>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.
>
> >>Did you mean to say Brian?
>
> > No I meant to say David. Apologies.
>
> >>Do you agree you cannot formalise what the values represent?
>
> > Yes, imo no "meaning" can be represented via a purely descriptive
> > formalism. One always needs some component situated in the real world
> > for that. But obviously we can formalize communicated statements of
> > fact.
>
> >>[schnnnip]
>
> >>>>>>C.Date distinguishes between a value (that by definition doesn't exist
> >>>>>>in time and space), versus the *appearance* of a value which appears
> >>>>>>in time and space and is encoded in a particular way.
>
> >>>>>Is this what your view of the terms is based upon?
>
> >>>>These definitions seems reasonable to me.
>
> >>>This seem overly philosophical to me. Surely we don't need metaphysics
> >>>to know that if someone hands me a bit of paper with: "1.00, 0.376 and
> >>>0.904" on it, well that's just a list of values. However if if someone
> >>>hands you a bit of paper with "Surface Gravity - Earth:1.00, Mars:
> >>>0.376 and Venus:0.904", or tells you those denotations, then we have
> >>>data ;)
>
> >>You have repeatedly chosen examples that suit your argument, whereas
> >>according to our disagreement only I that have that privilege!
>
> >>Jim:
> >> In all examples, data is useful to the recipient and
> >> represents facts
>
> > Yes, of course, because the poem example is much harder for me to deal
> > with ;P
>
> >>David:
> >> 1) In all examples, data is useful to the recipient and
> >> represents values; and
> >> 2) There exists example where data is useful to the recipient
> >> and doesn't represent facts
>
> >>Since a tuple of a relation is a value and it also represents a fact
> >>it is clear that my definition of data encompasses yours.
>
> >>We can both easily think of examples where (so called) data is useless
> >>to the recipient. Let's agree and say that's not actually data. That
> >>only leaves one possibility for proof by counter example: I provide
> >>an example where the data is useful to the recipient yet doesn't
> >>convey any facts. The sending of a poem or an image without any
> >>additional context is an example.
>
> > Well put. I contend that you can't do this, and that a poem or image
> > as described is not an example of data, but merely values.
>
> If it is represented suitably for machine processing, it is data.

So before computers there was no data? Really?

> It has
> value to the recipient as data because it evokes some emotion or image
> and because a machine can store it, transmit it, reformat it etc. The
> poem is also a fact. The poem doesn't convey a fact. It is one. Poem P
> says Blah.
>
> [misguided argument snipped]
Received on Fri Feb 15 2008 - 12:14:15 CET