|
|
|
date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:45:57 +0100,
group: uk.net.news.moderation
back
Re: ulm Pedant of the week?
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:10:08 +0100, smr wrote:
> Ah, I'd been following the other line of the thread, apologies. Yeah,
> you really can't be too restrictive about what data can consist of,
> recorded measurements are a type of data rather than data is recorded
> measurements.
To stake my entry for this week's award (see subject) recorded measurements
is a type of data or they are of a type of data.
Tony
date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:45:57 +0100
author: Anthony R. Gold
|
Re: ulm Pedant of the week?
Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:10:08 +0100, smr wrote:
>
>> Ah, I'd been following the other line of the thread, apologies. Yeah,
>> you really can't be too restrictive about what data can consist of,
>> recorded measurements are a type of data rather than data is recorded
>> measurements.
>
> To stake my entry for this week's award (see subject) recorded measurements
> is a type of data or they are of a type of data.
>
> Tony
:|
Whoa, this one is harder the longer I think about it. I think I prefer
is, since there's only one type being discussed. My are stemmed from
there being more than one measurement and datum which seems to have been
the wrong approach.
date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:11:53 +0100
author: smr
|
|
|
