Re: Mixing OO and DB
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:27:47 -0400
Message-ID: <47b75555$0$4050$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
JOG wrote:
> 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.
Would it help to change machine processing to mechanistic processing? I am not sure that it would.
>>>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 - 22:27:47 CET