Bill Burkett wrote:
>>> Maybe. Words on a page are data; (01)
Doug Foxvog replied:
>
>> These are physical objects -- as are folds, coffee stains, and dust on the
>page. (02)
Bill again:
> But there is a big and significant difference between the words and the
>folds/stains/dust. The words were intentionally put on the page to represent
>some meaning/information. The folds and stains may be intentionally put there
>and may convey some meaning (e.g., an author/reader spilled his coffee perhaps
>because he was excited by the words he read :-)), but it's different than the
>words. The difference is intentionally and a language grammar. (03)
It is not sufficient that those marks have an interpretation. If the
writing on the page is in Mayan, it is not "data" for you; it is just
marks. Those marks are only data when you can read them. Reading is the
mental transformation from marks to meaning. (04)
Dan Gillman described "data" as the binding between marks and concepts.
But what he really meant is that "data" is the marks seen as the
representation of a particular meaning. Put another way, Dan's
definition of "data" is the role of the mark/sign in an instance of
'concept is represented by sign'. And I think that is really what Bill
means. (05)
The big difference in our viewpoints is this: I see data as the
information that is represented by the marks, and you see data as the
marks that convey information. We label different roles in the same
relationship as "data", but we both demand that the relationship exists
in the eye of the reader. (06)
I justify my choice by saying that a given datum (meaning) can have more
than one representation, can be conveyed by more than one kind of mark.
Your model says that "1" and "one" are different data, because the marks
are clearly different. And I simply don't find that distinction
semantically useful. (07)
But computationally, "reading" those two marks requires different
technical processes. That is why I said to Dan that his model is a
computational model. (08)
-Ed (09)
P.S. Peirce's term "mark" is not so commonly used in the semiotics
literature I am familiar with. Rather the term "sign", borrowed from
some translation of Frege's "Zeichen", is commonly used. I hope we can
agree that the terms are synonyms. (010)
>
>>> In this forum, the "data" we're usually interested in are the
>>> sequences and chunks of bits in computing systems.
>> Another forum may be interested in sequences of bits. The Ontology Forum
>has shown no such interest, so far as i can tell.
> This is another statement that really surprised me. As far as I can tell,
>most of the participants in this forum are computer scientists and if they're
>not ultimately interested in chunk/sequences of bits and how they're processed
>then they are not really practicing their discipline. If this is a philosophy
>forum, then that is a different matter altogether - yes, sequences of bits
>have no relevance to such discussions. The logical grounding of ontology
>languages like OWL is, IMO and understanding, entirely for the purpose of
>automated computer processing (e.g., reasoning). You can abstract it away to
>mathematics or philosophy, but I would then submit that you're also
>abstracting it away from the practical applications I think we're all
>interested in.
>
>> 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?
> Yes and only.
>
> 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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 8:23 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: [External] Re: [ontolog-forum] What is Data? What is a Datum?
>2013-01-09-0930
>
> 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
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
>> (a point not emphasized in this discussion) and /may/ have meaning
>> associated with it.
> of:Data is encoded meaning. This is another way that wb:Data is different
>from of:Data.
>
>> Consider data collected by radio telescopes ... does it have meaning?
> 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),
>
>> Maybe. Words on a page are data;
> These are physical objects -- as are folds, coffee stains, and dust on the
>page.
>
> 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.
>
>> a speech that you listen to at a conference is data.
> The physical event may be wb:Data, but it isn't of:Data. It may represent
>and be represented by of:Data
>
>> 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.
>> In this forum, the "data" we're usually interested in are the
>> sequences and chunks of bits in computing systems.
> 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.
>
>> 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.)
> Bill, there is a huge difference between wb:Data and of:Data.
>
> 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?
>
> -- doug f
>
>> Bill
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (011)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: 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 (012)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|