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