On Thu, January 10, 2013 18:29, Burkett, William [USA] wrote:
> I don't chime in much here, but I generally support the position Dan
> Gilman puts forth. Data is something physical and observable (01)
This is a novel property of the term. I suggest using a clearly different
term for such a meaning, to make clear it is a meaning different from
what everyone else here is discussing. I'll refer to it as wb:Data and
what the Ontology Forum has been discussing, of:Data. (02)
If wb:Data is something physical, i physically can not have the same
wb:Data on my machine that William has on his machine (so long as
they are two different physical machines). (03)
> (a point not emphasized in this discussion)
> and /may/ have meaning associated with it. (04)
of:Data is encoded meaning. This is another way that wb:Data is
different from of:Data. (05)
> Consider data collected by radio telescopes ... does it have meaning? (06)
Yes. It means that certain patterns in the electromagnetic spectrum were
recorded by given telescopes at given times. If such data is correlated
with data recording the direction the individual telescopes were pointing
at those times, it MAY be possible to conclude ADDITIONAL information
(or meaning), (07)
> Maybe. Words on a page are data; (08)
These are physical objects -- as are folds, coffee stains, and dust on the
page. (09)
That the words/folds/stains/dust are located on the page (as well as
their physical features such as size, shape, color, and orientation, may
be encoded as of:Data. If the words are arranged so as to represent
sentences, the (intangible) sentences are of:Data. (010)
> a speech that you listen to at a conference is data. (011)
The physical event may be wb:Data, but it isn't of:Data. It may
represent and be represented by of:Data (012)
> Most importantly, different (physical) data can
> convey the same meaning (information), so you can't equate
> data/representation with meaning. Data is just a means to an end, e.g.,
> the (possible) representation of meaning. (013)
> In this forum, the "data" we're usually interested in are the sequences
> and chunks of bits in computing systems. (014)
Another forum may be interested in sequences of bits. The Ontology
Forum has shown no such interest, so far as i can tell. The only
relationship that of:Data has with bits is that any of:Datum can be
encoded using bits in an unlimited number of ways. The Ontology
Forum does not deal with issues of big-endian/small-endian binary
numbers, encodings of reals and rationals, or the use of UNICODE, ASCII,
EBCIDIC, or earlier encodings. It does not deal with issues of physical
encodings that are part of wb:Data -- magnetic or reflective domains,
holes in punch cards, q-bits, fonts, etc. (015)
> But the statement above still
> apply: data is physical thing, usually imbued with meaning by our
> articulation and interpretation processes (which may be embodied by the
> software we write.) (016)
Bill, there is a huge difference between wb:Data and of:Data. (017)
If it is useful for the Ontology Forum to discuss wb:Data, i would
suggest using a different term. Are you referring to physical symbols? (018)
-- doug f (019)
> Bill
>
> _________________
> William C. Burkett Associate
> Booz | Allen | Hamilton
> 121 S Tejon St # 900 | Suite 900 South Tower | Colorado Springs, CO, 80903
> T: 719-387-6452 | M: 310-318-5500 | F: 719-387-2020
> burkett_william@xxxxxxx<mailto:burkett_william@xxxxxxx>
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Barkmeyer
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 4:03 PM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [External] Re: [ontolog-forum] What is Data? What is a Datum?
> 2013-01-09-0930
>
> OK. FWIW, I agree with John's three categories below. But for me, kind
> (3), a bucket of values, is not "data". It is just "values". And
> following the Gillman thread, it is not even clear that it is "values", if
> you don't know what type the values are supposed to represent. Is
> 220449999 an integer? a naming string from some registry like tax-id or
> DUNSid? a code? It is just a sequence of characters until we have some
> indication of how to interpret it. And I don't see how that is a 'datum'.
> Even Dan Gillman's definition requires that we know what kind of
> individual it represents.
>
> -Ed
>
> On 1/10/2013 5:41 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
> Ed,
>
>
>
> The distinction I am making is in what the datum is. I argue that
>
> a datum is a proposition. A value without any interpretation is not
>
> a datum. It is a child without a meaning.
>
>
>
> That is a reasonable definition. I stated the etymology in my note:
>
> "A datum is anything that is given." Somebody might give you a list
>
> of values without telling you what they mean.
>
>
>
> JFS
>
> I would also add that not all data is propositional. For example,
>
> the list of names and numbers in a telephone book consists of paired
>
> instances of two kinds of data. Each pair becomes a proposition
>
> when the instances are inserted in an appropriate schema:
>
>
>
> "The person named _________ has the telephone number ________."
>
>
>
> EB
>
> I disagree. That is, the meaning of each pair in the telephone
>
> directory is a proposition of that form, and the pair is a datum. It is
>
> not necessary to express the sentence per se.
>
>
>
> A telephone book gives us a list of paired values. The intended
>
> propositions are derived by combining the values with some relations.
>
>
>
> Instead of quibbling about some email note(s), I suggest that we
>
> classify the kinds of data:
>
>
>
> 1. Explicit statements of propositions in some language.
>
>
>
> 2. Values (names, numerals, strings, etc.) in some kind of
>
> structures (tables, lists, graphs) together with some
>
> schema (implicit or explicit) for interpreting the
>
> structures of values as propositions.
>
>
>
> 3. Values that have become detached from their explanations and
>
> present a puzzle to be solved before they can be interpreted
>
> as propositions.
>
>
>
> 4. Etc.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email:
> edbark@xxxxxxxx<mailto:edbark@xxxxxxxx>
>
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
>
> Systems Integration Division, Engineering Laboratory
>
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
>
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Cel: +1 240-672-5800
>
>
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
>
> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> (020)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (021)
|