[Sigia-l] data as information?

[Ed Housman]

This is my last 2 cents on this topic for a while:

I ocurrs to me that those who treat data as a *plural* are speaking of
data (plural of datum) as they are conceived in *Information Theory*, a
methematical framework for analyzing signals moving across a communication
medium.  The focus is NOT on meaning of the signals being sent, but on
achieving reliability, reducing errors, and minimizing required bandwidth; in
this context data and information are essentially synonymous.  

Those who consider data as *singular* think of it (not them) in a different
context -- as a bit stream with content.  This is the realm of *Information
Science* which focuses more on the messages, data stores, data creation, data
retrieval and things not directly related to channel capacity.  Data in this
context is potential information.  And here data and information are NOT
synonymous.  Information is a richer concept.

When people have a different perspective on a word, that's called semantics. 
And we begin clashing over belief systems.   

--Ed


--- Alexander Johannesen <alexander.johannesen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 7/1/05, Boniface Lau <boniface_lau at compuserve.com> wrote:
> > No, this thread was started by Eric Scheid. He asked me a question in
> > the thread-starting post.
> 
> Let me rephrase; the current thread of discussions.
> 
> > > saying that all IA's treat information as data.
> > 
> > No, I was referring to IAs as a group. That is very different from
> > saying "all IAs". 
> 
> How? What is the difference between the group IAs and 'all IAs' (who
> would by definition be in the group IAs)?
> 
> > BTW, the proper English form is "IAs", not "IA's"
> > for the two mean very different things.
> 
> Yes, I'm sorry. I'm not a native English speaker. I do know the
> difference, but in the heat of discussion that little ' tends to creep
> in for reasons of mental stability.
> 
> > Such distinction is very important because the basis of my comment was
> > primarily the general observation on this list, which is a subset of
> > the IA population.
> 
> But you still haven't applied any kind of proof for this assertion
> either. It is still a stupid argument to point to an archive of years
> of posting. It is like saying "I'm right, and you can find the
> evidence yourself." Stupid. Give us examples.
> 
> > > I objected quite strongly to this, a) because all IA's are not
> > > equal,
> > 
> > Your objection would have a firm ground had I said, "all IAs". But I
> > did not.
> 
> My objection still stands wheter you choose "the group called IAs" or
> "all IAs". Take your pick, and provide some evidence.
> 
> > > and b) because "datum can't be demonstrated" and hence can't be talked
> > > about in any practical and sometimes even abstract way,
> > 
> > May be that is because, for practical purposes, data and information
> > refer to the same thing.
> 
> I'll sort of agree that for practical purposes, they are the same, but
> hey! why even call it data when the theory says it is not? You're
> quite keen on telling us (and I'll fold in your latest clarifications)
> that IAs (as a group) treat information as data. Are you basically
> just saying that for practical purposes IAs treat them as the same,
> and that *is* the problem? In that case, *what* is the problem? Or
> better, how is it a problem? And I'll throw that I don't even belive
> that data as a concept exist in the IA world; any data observed are no
> longer data, so how am I treating information as data? I certainly
> doesn't treat information as if it doesn't exists ...
> 
> > > I say you're full of it. Back it up, or push off. You're leading a
> > > silly argument now, just like Boniface "proof" that he is right; "just
> > > read the archives". Yeah, right.
> > 
> > Remember that people cannot read your mind. They don't know exactly
> > the level of detail you need for a proof. 
> 
> Well, *anything* would be a good start.
> 
> > Thus, when you need more
> > detail, it is your responsibility to say so. Simply dismissing an
> > argument as invalid because you didn't bother to ask for more detail
> > is IMO neither fair nor rational.
> 
> I'm not dismissing an argument; I'm dismissing the *lack* of argument.
> And I've asked for more detail in *all* of my mails. It is what I'm
> after. It is the goal of my involvement. I've asked both you and Scott
> for clarification that doesn't involve silly "look in the archives"
> kind of nonsense. Why you want to defend that sort of "go find it
> yourself" argumentation is quite stunning, given the nature of what
> IAs normally do; show us that we, IAs as a group, treat information as
> data by example. C'mon, I dare you. :)
> 
> 
> Alex
> -- 
> "Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
>                                                          - Frank Herbert
> __ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________
> ------------
> When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
> *Plain text, please; NO Attachments
> 
> Searchable Archive at http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
> 
> IA 06 Summit.  Mark your calendar.  March 23-27, Vancouver, BC
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l at asis.org
> Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l
>