Re: Examples of SQL anomalies?

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:57:27 -0300
Message-ID: <486d919c$0$4042$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net>


JOG wrote:

> On Jul 3, 9:48 pm, "Brian Selzer" <br..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote:
> 

>>>"JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:fc052479-4abb-415d-89fa->8cb5cd432__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z___at_j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>I normally accord to the definitions:
>>
>>>information = datum + meaning
>>>datum = value + description
>>
>>>These are useful, succinct and accord nicely with [ISO 2382-1:1984]:
>>>“Data: A representation of facts, concepts, or instructions in a
>>>normalized manner suitable for communication, interpretation, or
>>>processing by humans or by automatic means”, while giving something a
>>>bit more formalized in terms of data theory.
>>
>>>In terms of defining value both the output of a function or the
>>>element of a set seem fine, but then defining a value as being some
>>>amount or quantity also seems fine.
>>
>>I have a different take:
>>
>>A value has no value except that which is assigned to it under an
>>interpretation: a value is not the output of just /any/ function, but rather
>>/the/ function that maps language terms to what those terms mean.
> 
> that's similar to what I said no? value + description?
> 
> 

>>Information is just one or more values.
> 
> so you don't incorporate a "meaning" into information? I don't think I
> could agree with you there.
> 
> 

>>A datum is simply a formatted value that cannot be broken down into a
>>collection of component values that means the same thing.
>>
>>Data is just formatted information.

JOG, in case you hadn't noticed, Selzer is just making shit up as he goes along. Received on Thu Jul 03 2008 - 21:57:27 CDT

Original text of this message