Re: Mixing OO and DB
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:27:18 -0400
Message-ID: <47b5cb77$0$4058$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
JOG wrote:
> 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?
Of course there was. Computers are not the only machines.
>>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 - 18:27:18 CET