Search (132 results, page 1 of 7)

0.05533268 = product of:
  0.11066536 = sum of:
    0.11066536 = sum of:
      0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0108246 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.09984076 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09984076 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

Type

a

0.048644617 = product of:
  0.097289234 = sum of:
    0.097289234 = sum of:
      0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0108246 = score(doc=136,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
      0.086464636 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.086464636 = score(doc=136,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.536106 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper suggests a framework and systematic definitions for 6 words commonly used in dthe field of information science: data, information, knowledge, wisdom, inspiration, and intelligence. We intend these definitions to lead to a quantification of information science, a quantification that will enable their measurement, manipulastion, and prediction.

Date

22. 2.2007 18:56:23
22. 2.2007 19:22:13

Type

a

0.035984084 = product of:
  0.07196817 = sum of:
    0.07196817 = sum of:
      0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009567685 = score(doc=2277,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
      0.06240048 = weight(_text_:22 in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06240048 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

31. 7.2001 20:22:57

Footnote

Thematisierung der Verschiebung des Verständnisses von Wissensmanagement; vgl. auch: Day, R.E.: Totality and representation: a history of knowledge management ... in: JASIS 52(2001) no.9, S.725-735

Type

a

0.03423535 = product of:
  0.0684707 = sum of:
    0.0684707 = sum of:
      0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00669738 = score(doc=2746,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
      0.061773323 = weight(_text_:22 in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.061773323 = score(doc=2746,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)

Content

Vgl. Erwiderung: Hjoerland, B.: The controversy over the concept of information: a rejoinder to Professor Bates. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.643.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:15:22

Type

a

0.025188856 = product of:
  0.05037771 = sum of:
    0.05037771 = sum of:
      0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 2790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00669738 = score(doc=2790,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2790, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2790)
      0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 2790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043680333 = score(doc=2790,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2790, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2790)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Survivors of intimate partner violence face more than information gaps; many face powerful barriers in the form of information myths. Triangulating data from in-depth interviews and community bulletin board postings, this study incorporates insights from survivors, police, and shelter staff to begin mapping the information landscape through which survivors move. An unanticipated feature of that landscape is a set of 28 compelling information myths that prevent some survivors from making effective use of the social, legal, economic, and support resources available to them. This analysis of the sources, contexts, and consequences of these information myths is the first step in devising strategies to counter their ill effects.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:16:44

Type

a

0.021590449 = product of:
  0.043180898 = sum of:
    0.043180898 = sum of:
      0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005740611 = score(doc=479,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

23. 1.2022 10:22:18

Type

a

0.021476595 = product of:
  0.04295319 = sum of:
    0.04295319 = sum of:
      0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 3012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007654148 = score(doc=3012,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3012, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3012)
      0.03529904 = weight(_text_:22 in 3012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529904 = score(doc=3012,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.21886435 = fieldWeight in 3012, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3012)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

When we were all facing the turn of the century and the somewhat larger turn of the millennium, we left behind epochs of colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, nazism and racialism. Not that the ideologies mentioned does no longer exist, but their impact as grand narratives has gone and they now exist as fragmented discursive parts of their former, illusive hegemony. Parts that have been thrown into the pits of post modern complexity. The 21st century holds no answers, no new meaning, at most it provides human communication a certain self reflectivity due to the increasing egocentrism and individuality of people (i.e. still mostly western people). Another symptom of the loss of grand narratives is a feeling of loss of meaning in everyday life, as well as the state of democracies around the world. Democracy shivers in its void between anarchy and repressive dictatorship. The description 'information age' provides the times we are in with a useful sticker. It tents both back in time e.g. the late 20, century digitalisation and forward in time by givingr origin to the contemporary discourse of social semantics i.e. Dream society, Knowledge society, Post modern society, Risk society, Hypercomplex society etc. The phrase 'information age' implied the introduction of a paradigm shift, and now it is still here showing that paradigms do not shift, they slide. This paper outlines a manifest for librarians and librarianship of the information age. The information age puts the spotlight on the librarian, both regarding classical tasks such as classification and cataloguing as well as new tasks such as systems analysis and design or database searching.
Complexity establishes a paradox between the tasks of preserving old knowledge (memory function) and facilitate cognitive dissonance in order to challenge established knowledge claims and create new knowledge (catalyser function). Through complexity all social systems organisations, discourse communities, ideologies) face an environment (or surrounding) that is characterised through its instability and contingency. What is real, or presumable real from one point of view can appear completely different from another point of view. Different discourses of meaning and significance float, blend and separates themselves form each other the arena of communication. The library has to both keep record of what has happened, as well as take part in the ongoing battles for new discursive hegemonies. The unity of the paradox of memory and catalysing is described as managing complexity and requires a conscious and constant oscillation between order and chaos, stability and change. The role of the librarian is defined through an analysis of contemporary social semantics as well as the technical, ethical, cultural and epistemological challenges facing us as librarians and information specialists.

Date

22. 7.2009 11:23:22

Type

a

0.01974305 = product of:
  0.0394861 = sum of:
    0.0394861 = sum of:
      0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 5268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008285859 = score(doc=5268,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 5268, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5268)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 5268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=5268,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5268, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5268)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is an empirical, experimental investigation of the value of information, as perceived through the willingness to purchase information (WTP) and the willingness to sell it (accept payment, WTA). We examined the effects of source nature: expertise versus content, and source status: copy versus exclusive original of information on the WTA-WTP ratio. In an animated computer simulation of a business game, players could maximize their profits by making choices regarding inventory and prices. Participants were offered the chance to bid for buying or selling information regarding the weather that may affect demand. We find, as hypothesized, that the subjective value of information does indeed follow the predictions of endowment effect theory. The ratio of willingness to accept to willingness to purchase (WTA-WTP) recorded for the 294 subjects resembles the ratio common for private goods, rather than the intuitively expected unity. The WTA-WTP ratios diverged from unity more often and in a more pronounced manner for information traded in the original form rather than as a copy of the original, although even for copies the WTA-WTP ratio is still double. The results yield a value of about three for the WTA-WTP ratio for original information whether the source is content or expertise. Copy information received a subjective value that was significantly different (lower) than original information. The implications for both online trading and online sharing of information are discussed.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:09:35

Type

a

0.016758895 = product of:
  0.03351779 = sum of:
    0.03351779 = sum of:
      0.008557598 = weight(_text_:a in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008557598 = score(doc=3077,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 3077, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3077)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=3077,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3077, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3077)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The new term Representation of knowledge, applied to the framework of electronic segments of information, with comprehension of new material support for information, and a review and total conceptualisation of the terminology which is being applied, entails a review of all traditional documentary practices. Therefore, a definition of the concept of Representation of knowledge is indispensable. The term representation has been used in westere cultural and intellectual tradition to refer to the diverse ways that a subject comprehends an object. Representation is a process which requires the structure of natural language and human memory whereby it is interwoven in a subject and in conscience. However, at the present time, the term Representation of knowledge is applied to the processing of electronic information, combined with the aim of emulating the human mind in such a way that one has endeavoured to transfer, with great difficulty, the complex structurality of the conceptual representation of human knowledge to new digital information technologies. Thus, nowadays, representation of knowledge has taken an diverse meanings and it has focussed, for the moment, an certain structures and conceptual hierarchies which carry and transfer information, and has initially been based an the current representation of knowledge using artificial intelligence. The traditional languages of documentation, also referred to as languages of representation, offer a structured representation of conceptual fields, symbols and terms of natural and notational language, and they are the pillars for the necessary correspondence between the object or text and its representation. These correspondences, connections and symbolisations will be established within the electronic framework by means of different models and of the "goal" domain, which will give rise to organisations, structures, maps, networks and levels, as new electronic documents are not compact units but segments of information. Thus, the new representation of knowledge refers to data, images, figures and symbolised, treated, processed and structured ideas which replace or refer to documents within the framework of technical processing and the recuperation of electronic information.

Date

2. 1.2005 18:22:25

Type

a

0.016758895 = product of:
  0.03351779 = sum of:
    0.03351779 = sum of:
      0.008557598 = weight(_text_:a in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008557598 = score(doc=3008,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The project Information Pricing was carried out during the summer semester 2004 by four students and two lecturers. Aim of the project was to develop a new product- and pricing concept for the research centre of the Public Library Cologne. The intention was to increase its competitiveness, especially in the business customer segment. The initiating factor for the project was the significant decrease in requests from 1997 to 2001. This paper describes the development of different attributes of information, analysing various pricing concepts of private and public information providers as well as the development of a pricing concept which is aligned to the requirements and performance of the research centre. The final result was an improved pricing system for an enhanced range of products. The first step was getting more familiar with the characteristics of information and the methods that can be used to measure the value of information. One of the key issues to consider is the value of information for a customer and the question how this value can be charged. In order to be capable of evaluating all issues of information pricing and to develop a solid pricing system, it was essential to analyse and assess pricing modules based on their intension of use. For example, the differentiation of the pricing concept with regard to certain user segments like business or private users as well as members and non-members. Another option is to define prices dependant on the requested response times for research tasks and thereby reflect the urgency of those tasks directly in the pricing concept. Furthermore, the qualitative and quantitative differentiation of information has to be taken into account. All described approaches - and also combinations of these - should be considered when developing a new pricing system. It is also important to recognize the special role of the research centre as a part of the public library. Libraries fulfil a public contract for their users. In this case it has to be ensured that people of all social backgrounds have the chance to gain access to all kind of information. While presenting results to the Public library Cologne some problems arose, mainly the gap between theoretical and practical feasibility. The final result was a practical pricing system, which is easy to implement for the research centre and which is described in the paper.

Date

22. 7.2009 9:24:59

Type

a

0.012112157 = product of:
  0.024224315 = sum of:
    0.024224315 = sum of:
      0.008624195 = weight(_text_:a in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008624195 = score(doc=2748,freq=52.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.16239727 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
              52.0 = termFreq=52.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.01560012 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01560012 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"This letter considers some main arguments in Professor Bates' article (2008), which is part of our former debate (Bates, 2005,2006; Hjoerland, 2007). Bates (2008) does not write much to restate or enlarge on her theoretical position but is mostly arguing about what she claims Hjorland (2007) ignored or misinterpreted in her two articles. Bates (2008, p. 842) wrote that my arguments did not reflect "a standard of coherence, consistency, and logic that is expected of an argument presented in a scientific journal." My argumentation below will refute this statement. This controversy is whether information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon (alone), as an objective phenomenon (alone), or as a combined objective and a subjective phenomenon ("having it both ways"). Bates (2006) defined "information" (sometimes, e.g., termed "information 1," p. 1042) as an objective phenomenon and "information 2" as a subjective phenomenon. However, sometimes the term "information" is also used as a synonym for "information 2," e.g., "the term information is understood to refer to one or both senses" (p. 1042). Thus, Professor Bates is not consistent in using the terminology that she herself introduces, and confusion in this controversy may be caused by Professor Bates' ambiguity in her use of the term "information." Bates (2006, p. 1033) defined information as an objective phenomenon by joining a definition by Edwin Parker: "Information is the pattern of organization of matter and energy." The argument in Hjoerland (2007) is, by contrast, that information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon all the way down: That neither the objective definition of information nor "having it both ways" is fruitful. This is expressed, for example, by joining Karpatschof's (2000) definition of information as a physical signal relative to a certain release mechanism, which implies that information is not something objective that can be understood independently of an observer or independently of other kinds of mechanism that are programmed to be sensitive to specific attributes of a signal: There are many differences in the world, and each of them is potentially informative in given situations. Regarding Parker's definition, "patterns of organization of matter and energy" are no more than that until they inform somebody about something. When they inform somebody about something, they may be considered information. The following quote is part of the argumentation in Bates (2008): "He contrasts my definition of information as 'observer-independent' with his position that information is 'situational' and adds a list of respected names on the situational side (Hjoerland, 2007, p. 1448). What this sentence, and much of the remainder of his argument, ignores is the fact that my approach accounts for both an observer-independent and a contextual, situational sense of information." Yes, it is correct that I mostly concentrated on refuting Bates' objective definition of information. It is as if Bates expects an overall appraisal of her work rather than providing a specific analysis of the points on which there are disagreements. I see Bates' "having it both ways": a symptom of inconsistence in argumentation.
Bates (2008, p. 843) further writes about her definition of information: "This is the objectivist foundation, the rock bottom minimum of the meaning of information; it informs both articles throughout." This is exactly the focus of my disagreement. If we take a word in a language, it is understood as both being a "pattern of organization of matter and energy" (e.g., a sound) and carrying meaning. But the relation between the physical sign and its meaning is considered an arbitrary relation in linguistics. Any physical material has the potential of carrying any meaning and to inform somebody. The physical stuff in itself is not information until it is used as a sign. An important issue in this debate is whether Bates' examples demonstrate the usefulness of her own position as opposed to mine. Her example about information seeking concerning navigation and how "the very layout of the ship and the design of the bridge promoted the smooth flow of information from the exterior of the ship to the crew and among the crewmembers" (Bates, 2006, pp. 1042-1043) does not justify Bates' definition of information as an objective phenomenon. The design is made for a purpose, and this purpose determines how information should be defined in this context. Bates' view on "curatorial sciences" (2006, p. 1043) is close to Hjorland's suggestions (2000) about "memory institutions," which is based on the subjective understanding of information. However, she does not relate to this proposal, and she does not argue how the objective understanding of information is related to this example. I therefore conclude that Bates' practical examples do not support her objective definition of information, nor do they support her "having it both ways." Finally, I exemplify the consequences of my understanding of information by showing how an archaeologist and a geologist might represent the same stone differently in information systems. Bates (2008, p. 843) writes about this example: "This position is completely consistent with mine." However, this "consistency" was not recognized by Bates until I published my objections and, therefore, this is an indication that my criticism was needed. I certainly share Professor Bates (2008) advice to read her original articles: They contain much important stuff. I just recommend that the reader ignore the parts that argue about information being an objective phenomenon."
References Bates, M.J. (2005). Information and knowledge: An evolutionary framework for information science. Information Research, 10(4), paper 239. Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html. Bates, M.J. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1033-1045. Bates, M.J. (2008). Hjorland's critique of Bates' work on defining information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 842-844. Hjoerland, B. (2000). Documents, memory institutions, and information science. Journal of Documentation, 56, 27-41. Hjoerland, B. (2007). Information: Objective or subjective-situational? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1448-1456. Karpatschof, B. (2000). Human activity. Contributions to the anthropological sciences from a perspective of activity theory. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://informationr.net/ir/ 12-3/Karpatschof/Karp00.html.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27

Type

a

0.010920083 = product of:
  0.021840166 = sum of:
    0.021840166 = product of:
      0.043680333 = sum of:
        0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 3067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043680333 = score(doc=3067,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3067, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3067)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

15. 6.2002 19:22:01

0.004101291 = product of:
  0.008202582 = sum of:
    0.008202582 = product of:
      0.016405163 = sum of:
        0.016405163 = weight(_text_:a in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016405163 = score(doc=4647,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.3089162 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.003827074 = product of:
  0.007654148 = sum of:
    0.007654148 = product of:
      0.015308296 = sum of:
        0.015308296 = weight(_text_:a in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015308296 = score(doc=4189,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 4189, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.003551822 = product of:
  0.007103644 = sum of:
    0.007103644 = product of:
      0.014207288 = sum of:
        0.014207288 = weight(_text_:a in 837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014207288 = score(doc=837,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.26752928 = fieldWeight in 837, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper outlines the relation between philosophy of information (PI) and human information behavior (HIB). In this paper, we first briefly outline the basic constructs and approaches of PI and HIB. We argue that a strong relation exists between PI and HIB, as both are exploring the concept of information and premise information as a fundamental concept basic to human existence. We then exemplify that a heuristic approach to PI integrates the HIB view of information as a cognitive human-initiated process by presenting a specific cognitive architecture for information initiation based on modular notion from HIB/evolutionary psychology and the vacuum mechanism from PI.

Type

a

0.0031324127 = product of:
  0.0062648254 = sum of:
    0.0062648254 = product of:
      0.012529651 = sum of:
        0.012529651 = weight(_text_:a in 227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012529651 = score(doc=227,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 227, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many competing definitions for the terms data, information, metadata, and knowledge can be traced in the library and information science literature. The lack of a clear consensus in the way reference is made to the corresponding fundamental concepts is intensified if one considers additional disciplinary perspectives, e.g. database technology, data mining, etc. In the present paper, we use a common sense approach, to selectively survey the literature, and define these terms in a way that can advance the interdisciplinary development of information systems.

Source

Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch

Type

a

0.0030255679 = product of:
  0.0060511357 = sum of:
    0.0060511357 = product of:
      0.012102271 = sum of:
        0.012102271 = weight(_text_:a in 7422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012102271 = score(doc=7422,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 7422, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7422)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The present article describes the use of Repertory Grid methodology as a menas of externalizing an individual's view of information space. The method is described with a single participant, and appears to offer a viable means of exploring the concept of information space. Future work will examine multiple views in an attampt to explore the extent to which the concept is shared among a group of people

Type

a

0.0029294936 = product of:
  0.005858987 = sum of:
    0.005858987 = product of:
      0.011717974 = sum of:
        0.011717974 = weight(_text_:a in 4448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011717974 = score(doc=4448,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 4448, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4448)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper considers an instance of non-verbal graphic communication from the legend of Theseus, in terms of information theory. The efficient cause of a failure in communication is regarded as a selection error and the formal cause as the absence of redundancy from the signals (a binary contrast between a black and a white sail) for transmission. Two considerations are then introduced. First, why should such a system of signalling have been succeeded by a graphic communication system, in alphabetic written language, so strongly marked by its redundancy? Second, why has information theory been so successful in describing systems for signal transmission but far less productive for modelling human-to-human communication, at the level of meaning or of the effects of messages on recipients? The legend is read historically, adopting specific insights, a method of interpretation, and a historical schema from Vico. The binary code used for the signal transmission is located as a rare but significant transitional form, mediating between heroic emblems and written language. For alphabetic written language, a link to the sounds of oral utterance replaces the connection to the mental states of the human information source and destination. It is also suggested that redundancy was deliberately introduced to counteract the effects of selection errors and noise. With regard to information theory, it is suggested that conformity with necessary conditions for signal transmission, which may include the introduction of redundancy, cannot be expected to yield insights into communication, at the level of meaning or the effects of messages.

Type

a

0.002776587 = product of:
  0.005553174 = sum of:
    0.005553174 = product of:
      0.011106348 = sum of:
        0.011106348 = weight(_text_:a in 4244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011106348 = score(doc=4244,freq=44.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20913726 = fieldWeight in 4244, product of:
              6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
                44.0 = termFreq=44.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Does information science have a theory of information? There seems to be a tendency within information science to seek a theory of information, but the search is apparently unproductive (Hjoerland, 1998; Saracevic, 1999). This review brings together work from inside and outside the field of information science, showing that other perspectives an information theory could be of assistance. Constructivist claims that emphasize the uniqueness of the individual experience of information, maintaining that there is no information independent of our social practices (Cornelius, 1996a), are also mentioned. Such a position would be echoed in a symbolic interactionist approach. Conventionally, the history of attempts to develop a theory of information date from the publication of Claude Shannon's work in 1948, and his joint publication of that work with an essay by Warren Weaver in 1949 (Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1963). Information science found itself alongside many other disciplines attempting to develop a theory of information (Machlup & Mansfield, 1983). From Weaver's essay stems the claim that the basic concepts of Shannon's mathematical theory of communication, which Shannon later referred to as a theory of information, can be applied in disciplines outside electrical engineering, even in the social sciences.
Shannon provides a model whereby an information source selects a desired message, out of a set of possible messages, that is then formed into a signal. The signal is sent over the communication channel to a receiver, which then transforms the signal back to a message that is relayed to its destination (Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1963, p. 7). Problems connected with this model have remained with us. Some of the concepts are ambiguous; the identification of information with a process has spancelled the debate; the problems of measuring the amount of information, the relation of information to meaning, and questions about the truth value of information have remained. Balancing attention between the process and the act of receiving information, and deterrnining the character of the receiver, has also been the focus of work and debate. Information science has mined work from other disciplines involving information theory and has also produced its own theory. The desire for theory remains (Hjorland, 1998; Saracevic, 1999), but what theory will deliver is unclear. The distinction between data and information, or communication and information, is not of concern here. The convention that data, at some point of use, become information, and that information is transferred in a process of communication suffices for this discussion. Substitution of any of these terms is not a problem. More problematic is the relationship between information and knowledge. It seems accepted that at some point the data by perception, or selection, become information, which feeds and alters knowledge structures in a human recipient. What that process of alteration is, and its implications, remain problematic. This review considers the following questions: 1. What can be gleaned from the history of reviews of information in information science? 2. What current maps, guides, and surveys are available to elaborate our understanding of the issues? 3. Is there a parallel development of work outside information science an information theory of use to us? 4. Is there a dominant view of information within information science? 5. What can we say about issues like measurement, meaning, and misinformation? 6. Is there other current work of relevance that can assist attempts, in information science, to develop a theory of information?

Type

a

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 3724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=3724,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 3724, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3724)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a