On Thu, 10 Apr 1997 [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> 1) There is conceptual difference between what a thing *is* and
> what a thing is *about*. For example, data *is* collected during
> a given interval; the data represents (*is*) the climate of North
> Africa. This pot *is* from 16th century China whereas that novel
> is *about* an imaginary pub in Islington. Coverage could be seen
> as an *is* element, so to speak. (Yeah, yeah -- it's not always
> clear, but you understand my point, I hope.) It may be a disservice
> to lump those things together for retrieval.
I do understand your point, but disagree. The conceptual difference
you're talking about is basically false.
Data are *about* things, they do not represent anything. Climatological
data can never be said to *be* the climate of a piece of time-space.
A theoretical global change model could possibly be claimed to
*represent* that particular aspect of reality.
All document-like objects are *about*.
Yours,
Siggy
|