Thanks for "mark token type", John. (01)
My primary reason for jumping into this discussion is to
submit/contribute/offer some simple - and in my mind, clear and unambiguous -
definitions for data and information that I've found useful and have worked for
me. Pierce's triad fits my definitions/uses perfectly: (02)
Data is always a physical mark.
Information is a token - the meaning interpreted from data/marks or encoded
in/by the articulation of data/marks (the intangible stuff "put into" or
"derived from" data)
Knowledge is a compendium (so to speak) of types that only exists in human
minds. It's used to ascertain the information/token when perceiving or
creating data/marks. (03)
So, IM-ever-so-HO, terms like "knowledge representation"/"ontology" and
"reasoning" are just high-falutin' names for "carefully constructed data
models" and "clever data processing", respectively. (04)
I realize that the positions/understandings of others in this forum different
significantly from this, and offer my position with a bit of trepidation (as an
occasional and under-qualified participant in this forum :-)) and a bit of
tongue-in-cheek thought-provocation. (05)
Bill (06)
_________________ (07)
William C. Burkett Associate (08)
Booz | Allen | Hamilton (09)
121 S Tejon St # 900 | Suite 900 South Tower | Colorado Springs, CO, 80903 (010)
T: 719-387-6452 | M: 310-318-5500 | F: 719-387-2020 (011)
burkett_william@xxxxxxx (012)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 10:15 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] [External] Re: What is Data? What is a Datum?
2013-01-09-0930 (013)
Bill, Dan, Doug, and Ed, (014)
I agree with all of you about the need for clear definitions and systematically
related systems of definitions. (015)
WB
> I generally support the position Dan Gilman puts forth. Data is
> something physical and observable (a point not emphasized in this
> discussion) and /may/ have meaning associated with it. (016)
DF
> This is a novel property of the term. I suggest using a clearly
> different term for such a meaning... (017)
I agree that we need better terms. But they must be (a) easy to remember, (b)
easy to use precisely, and (c) systematically related to terminology commonly
used in science and engineering. (018)
With his theory of signs, C. S. Peirce was precise and systematic.
His most primitive triad (two-thirds of which is widely used) is (019)
Mark, Token, Type (020)
Every sign consists of an observable, but not yet interpreted mark.
Every interpretation classifies that mark as a token of some type, but the
number of different types for the same mark is open ended. (021)
WB
> Consider data collected by radio telescopes ... does it have meaning?
> Maybe. Words on a page are data; a speech that you listen to at a
> conference is data. (022)
More generally, everything we see, hear, feel, smell, or taste is a mark.
Every perception is an interpretation of marks, but it may be an optical
illusion, a reflection, a recording, or a deliberately generated illusion for
benign or sinister purposes. (023)
WB
> data is physical thing, usually imbued with meaning by our
> articulation and interpretation processes (which may be embodied by
> the software we write.) (024)
That's why we must always consider the full triad: mark, token, type.
The mark is always physical. The token is always an interpretation, and the
type (of which there may be many) is one of many meanings. (025)
EB
> We disagree on the definition of 'datum'. Your definition makes it a
> synonym for the ISO 1087 term "designation" (at least as formally
> recast in the OMG SBVR specification, with the assistance of ISO TC37
> experts). (026)
I certainly agree with the need for standardized terminology. But I'd
recommend Peirce's term 'mark' instead of 'designation'. The two terms 'type'
and 'token' are already widely known and used. The word 'mark'
is a short, simple word whose technical sense in Peirce's triad is one of its
most common uses. (027)
EB
> I note carefully that ISO 11404 defines "equality" on "datatypes". It
> certainly does not define "equality" on "concepts", which is way
> beyond its scope. Further ISO 11404 defines a "datatype" to have a
> "value space", which, for a concept would be its extension, or for the
> sign, its denotation. I don't think ISO 11404 defines "datum", nor
> does it define the relationship between "datatype" and "datum"... (028)
When the experts can't agree, the probability of getting anybody else to adopt
and use their terms precisely is vanishingly small. (029)
DG
>> If a datum is only a meaning, then what distinguishes it from information?
>> And why do we have a representation for it? (030)
EB
> I simply don't understand these questions. I doubt that we agree on
> the definition of "information"; and it seems to me that we have to
> have representations for meanings in order to convey our intent to others. (031)
I strongly recommend Peirce's triad of mark, token and type as a basis for
analyzing, defining, and relating all this terminology. (032)
EB
> In my view, a table for which you don't know how to interpret a row is
> not 'data'; it is just an image. It might as well be a JPEG of a
> drawing. (033)
The general term for tables, JPEGs, or anything else that might be stored in a
computer is 'sign'. If you don't know how to interpret it, you can just call
it a 'mark'. The word 'image' is already a simple interpretation, which a
computer could infer from the ".jpg" part of the file name. But the number and
kinds of detailed interpretations of an image is enormous. (034)
For a very brief intro to Peirce's semiotics, see Section 2 (pp 3 to 9) of
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/rolelog.pdf (035)
I doubt that ISO or any other standards body is likely to adopt Peirce's full
system. But the triad of mark, token, and type can be used to define other
terminology more precisely. (036)
John (037)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (038)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (039)
|