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/
