Re: Mixing OO and DB
From: Brian Selzer <brian_at_selzer-software.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:06:54 GMT
Message-ID: <2DFtj.6385$xq2.2002_at_newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>
> Pointing to some information that isn't data and observing that it is not
> data doesn't demonstrate anything. Okay, some information is not data. The
> standard vocabularies already make that clear.
>
> So, you are saying the gradations marked on a yardstick are not data. You
> are suggesting that the machinery Brahe used for mapping the skies didn't
> yield any data just because Brahe took the measurement as recorded on the
> machinery and wrote it on vellum. On the machinery it was both information
> and data, and on the vellum it was information.
> Likewise, you are suggesting a number recorded in beads on an abacus is
> not data.
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:06:54 GMT
Message-ID: <2DFtj.6385$xq2.2002_at_newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>
"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news: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.
>
Bob, I think /you're/ the one that can't understand written english. Clearly Jim thinks that those written observations are data, even though they weren't suitable for machine processing.
FYI: Mulishness is not a virtue.
>> 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 - 19:06:54 CET