Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Peter Hunsberger wrote: >>> Data is information that lacks context. >> Or data is information fragmented to optimize logical processing, rather >> than assembled for human comprehension. > > What do humans have to do with any of this? I think it's because humans comprehend and share information in ways that look little like the pathways we describe for computers. I'm not even talking about "knowledge", just information. I recognize that an entire industry rests on believing that the 'information' computers produce is equivalent to 'information' as humans have described it in the past. I just don't believe that equivalence is real. > I'm actually being somewhat serious here. I often try to get the > people new to data modelling to think more "meta" by breaking it down > as: > > - Information is data in context; > > - Data can be local or global, private or shared, transient or > persistent, typed or untyped. Anything that puts any constraints on > any of these dimensions is some form of context. > > - One persons information is another persons data (substitute process > for person as needed). > > One can also play with "Knowledge is information in context" and > iterate, but that starts to devolve into debates on AI or metaphysics > (depending on the audience) if you're not careful... If your people think like computers, or in this case, prefer to think that they do, this description is great. If I spend too much time programming, everything looks like a programming construct. Step back, though, and it's clear that I've just spent too much time talking with computers. -- Simon St.Laurent http://simonstl.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
