Re: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?

Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

> mAsterdam writes

>>>> R 'loses the ability to view the data' from within M and that
>>>> would somehow mean M is *more* expressive?
>>>> The only way I could make sense out of that is
>>>> if the (appearant) excess expressions in R could
>>>> *not* be relevant to a solution.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have an indication as to what those excess expressions are?
>>>
>>>  they tend to be data that were collected and stored in the M 
>>> solution and
>>> designed out (deemed unimportant to retain) for the R solution.
>>
>> Just to get it straight: These 'designed out' data *can*
>> be represented in R (inferred from the R translation of the M solution),
>> but they are *not* represented in R because of the different design 
>> process (ispired by the nature of M cq. R)?

It is R or it is the analyst who did not view the metadata (and it would help if you could narrow it down by being more specific - I think there is a lot of metadata that you falsely exclude) as important. I would say it's the analyst, maybe - somewhat- inspired by the language she uses.

> And even where R expresses an M-like view of the data, it contains less
> INFORMATION, because R is unaware that it is expressing metadata.

So now languages should be aware of what they are expressing. Why this mixing, IMO unnecessary confusing way of saying things? Received on Sun Jun 20 2004 - 14:07:27 CEST