ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Looking to the Future of Data Science - NYTimes.com

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:54:43 -0700
Message-id: <00fb01cfc3cb$7641b9b0$62c52d10$@englishlogickernel.com>

What is “big” data now that you can put a 1TB Flash drive and a 3TB hard drive in the average laptop?  It’s all big data compared to past technologies, so when should the word change to medium data, or small data?

 

I agree that the real complexity is in the interrelationships among the data entities, and ambiguities inherent in natural language columns of data, that make the whole technology challenging.

 

-Rich

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jack Hodges
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 11:58 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Looking to the Future of Data Science - NYTimes.com - 2014.08.27

 

There is nothing wrong with data mining, per se, but it isn't the same thing as mining content for information models.

Jack

 

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Patrik Eklund <peklund@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2014-08-29 20:47, Peter Yim wrote:
> ...
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/looking-to-the-future-of-data-science/

> ... The “big” in big data tends to get all the attention, Mr. Etzioni
> said, ... involves both grammar and background knowledge.
> And the latter is something humans acquire through experience of the
> world.

Being new to this forum I may hit an "out of bounds", but my I7 tells me
"big data" should not even be about that "big". Size doesn't matter.
It's the complexity of data, and it's not even that. It's the complexity
of the structure of the data, like it's all about the complexity of the
anatomy of the swing, not just the complexity of the swing. A "big
swing" mostly brings you out of bounds, in particular when you focus on
that "big". Or at least, it produces a huge slice.

Data "mining" is really silly, if you ask me, and I for one think we
should reserve "mining" just for minerals, not for knowledge.

It's all about what logic really is, and isn't, isn't it?

Cheers,

Patrik



_________________________________________________________________
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
 




--
Jack


_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>