[Sigia-l] data as information?

[Eric Scheid]

On 30/6/05 1:02 PM, "Listera" <listera at rcn.com> wrote:

> What I objected was the confusion raised by the very example Dan gave to
> clarify things. 

Here is an example of an animal: cat

Does that mean that 'cat' is the atomic unit, that there is no broader
classification (eg. 'mammal'), of which 'cat' is one instance with a
specific contextualisation?

> It appeared to present data as being both atomic/inert and
> contextual/related.

Well, appearances can be deceiving. If what you perceive leads to confusion
then perhaps you should reconsider your initial interpretation.

Secondly, just because data might be defined as "the evidence of a
relationship between two things" does not require that those "two things" be
self-evident from the data. Thus "4638" while it *appears* to be a string of
4 random digits (ie. noise), it could also be a data item (you just don't
know what it relates to yet).

e.