Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:29:30 -0400
Message-ID: <47b71d7d$0$4036$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>


JOG wrote:
> On Feb 15, 5:27 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>

>>JOG wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 14, 2:04 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>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.

>
> So when Galileo was looking through a telescope recording his
> observations on paper, what machine was that data for? Or when
> biologists were describing dodo's in their log books, again, what
> machine was that data for?

Pointing to some information that isn't data and observing that it is not data doesn't demonstrate anything. Okay, some information is not data. The standard vocabularies already make that clear.

> Nope, the "machine processing" definition just doesn't cut it imo.

So, you are saying the gradations marked on a yardstick are not data. You are suggesting that the machinery Brahe used for mapping the skies didn't yield any data just because Brahe took the measurement as recorded on the machinery and wrote it on vellum. On the machinery it was both information and data, and on the vellum it was information.

Likewise, you are suggesting a number recorded in beads on an abacus is not data.

>>>>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 Sat Feb 16 2008 - 18:29:30 CET

Original text of this message