Re: Mixing OO and DB

On Feb 16, 7:00 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> JOG wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 5:29 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >>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.
>
> > I think you misunderstand me. I am saying that the observations
> > Galileo took down in his logbook /was/ data. It never went near
> > machine processing (certainly not in his lifetime), but it was still
> > data.
>
> I have to ask: Why do you think it is data? Are you not applying the
> colloquial definition which is a synonym for information?

I certainly hope not bob. I'm certainly trying to be very formal about it (in the spirit of Codd and Dijkstra), because I think if computer science ever wants to be taken seriously as a science we really have to be able to properly define what our central concepts - physics has particles and waves, whereas we have entities and data. Its harder for us of course, because unlike hard sciences, we are engulfed by a handwavy, buzzword obsessed IT industry.

>
> > The ISO definition is inadequate for use in a formal domain (it just
> > sounds like committee generated flim flam to me to be honest).
>
> I find it ironic that you seem to apply an informal definition and then
> complain it is not useful in a formal domain.
>
> >>>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 - 20:41:45 CET