Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Bates, M.J."
  • × theme_ss:"Information"
  1. Bates, M.J.: Fundamental forms of information (2006) 0.01
    0.014793559 = product of:
      0.029587118 = sum of:
        0.029587118 = product of:
          0.059174236 = sum of:
            0.059174236 = weight(_text_:22 in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.059174236 = score(doc=2746,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.15449683 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04411889 = queryNorm
                0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:15:22
  2. Bates, M.J.: Hjoerland's critique of Bates' work on defining information (2008) 0.01
    0.01100672 = product of:
      0.02201344 = sum of:
        0.02201344 = product of:
          0.1100672 = sum of:
            0.1100672 = weight(_text_:author's in 4773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.1100672 = score(doc=4773,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2964857 = queryWeight, product of:
                  6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04411889 = queryNorm
                0.3712395 = fieldWeight in 4773, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4773)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In a recent article, Birger Hjørland (2007) critiqued the author's efforts in defining and conceptualizing information as a core concept in information science (Bates, 2005, 2006). It is argued that Hjørland has seriously misrepresented and confused the actual line of argument in those articles. Specifics of that case are presented, and the reader is urged to return to the original Bates articles to understand her claims. In those articles, Bates attempted to develop a broad conception of information, as well as a number of subtypes of information, for use in the field of information science. The development of information was related to evolutionary processes, with emergence as a significant theme.
  3. Bates, M.J.: Concepts for the study of information embodiment (2018) 0.01
    0.006934429 = product of:
      0.013868858 = sum of:
        0.013868858 = product of:
          0.027737716 = sum of:
            0.027737716 = weight(_text_:i in 5525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027737716 = score(doc=5525,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16640453 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04411889 = queryNorm
                0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 5525, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5525)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    Vgl.: DOI: 10.1353/lib.2018.0002. Vgl. auch den Kommentar in: Lueg, C.: To be or not to be (embodied): that is not the question. In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.1, S.114-117. (Opinion paper) Two articles in a recent special issue on Information and the Body published in the journal Library Trends stand out because of the way they are identifying, albeit indirectly, a formidable challenge to library information science (LIS). In her contribution, Bates warns that understanding information behavior demands recognizing and studying "any one important element of the ecology [in which humans are embedded]." Hartel, on the other hand, suggests that LIS would not lose much but would have lots to gain by focusing on core LIS themes instead of embodied information, since the latter may be unproductive, as LIS scholars are "latecomer[s] to a mature research domain." I would argue that LIS as a discipline cannot avoid dealing with those pesky mammals aka patrons or users; like the cognate discipline and "community of communities" human computer interaction (HCI), LIS needs the interdisciplinarity to succeed. LIS researchers are uniquely positioned to help bring together LIS's deep understanding of "information" and embodiment perspectives that may or may not have been developed in other disciplines. LIS researchers need to be more explicit about what their original contribution is, though, and what may have been appropriated from other disciplines.