- From: Christopher Cavnor <ccavnor@systemsbiology.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:53:50 -0800
- To: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
I'd argue that most information resources are indeed semi-structured. The human brain is only able to meta-categorize resources based on its structured aspects (markup and structural metadata), its informational content (its aboutness), and context (environmental metadata). "Structured" data is only structured once we have a common understanding of its meaning. In this regard, data is never "raw" (except for randomly generated data) - as even structured database tables have metadata to add meaning. So the term "semi-structured" is always adequate as far as I am concerned. You'd have to prove that there is any other type of data to me ;) -- Christopher Cavnor On 2/14/06 10:54 AM, "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevron.com> wrote: > > OK, then is there a preferred term for what we call "semi-structured > data"? That is, information that is structured but where the structure > is not easily determined and perhaps has not been formalized at all, but > for which a formalized structure could be defined? For example, tables > in a spreadsheet? We really care about this kind of thing, but I don't > want to confuse the issue by using terms that most people understand > differently. > > Incidentally, from my personal experience the usage of the term > semi-structured, that is, binary blobs in structured databases, is not > very common. Frankly, this is the first I have heard the term used in > that sense, but maybe I just don't run in the right circles. > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim Hendler > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 3:43 PM > To: Pat Hayes; Gao, Yong > Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > Subject: Re: Unstructured vs. Structured (was: HL7 and patient records > in RDF/OWL?) > > > At 14:46 -0600 2/13/06, Pat Hayes wrote: >>> >>> The point I'm trying to make is this: The concept of "structuredness" >>> is relative and context-sensitive. >> >> Hear, hear. Well said. >> >> Pat Hayes >> > > > FWIW, Structured, unstructured and semi-structured, although non-precise > concepts in common language and (esp) philosophy, have well-defined and > precise meanings in database jargon" -- most database books have decent > definitions that are consistent with: > unstructured - NL text > semi-structured - unstructured fields within a structured DB context > structured - relational model (or similar) (those papers with > technical definitions tend to get ugly and recourse to relational > calculus, so these overly simplified definitions should suffice for now) > that said, in the spirit of this particular thread, I think we should be > careful and, if we mean to use it in a DB context, make it clear in any > document that uses the term (i.e. "structured database" v. > "structured data" which are very different in some contexts) > -JH
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2006 05:26:21 UTC