Search (170 results, page 9 of 9)

0.0058946493 = product of:
  0.011789299 = sum of:
    0.011789299 = product of:
      0.023578597 = sum of:
        0.023578597 = weight(_text_:systems in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023578597 = score(doc=1182,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.14702557 = fieldWeight in 1182, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1182)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Consider a sentence such as "the current price of tea in China is 35 cents per pound." In a library with millions of books we might find many statements of the above form that we could capture today with relatively simple rules: rather than pursuing every variation of a statement, programs can wait, like predators at a water hole, for their informational prey to reappear in a standard linguistic pattern. We can make inferences from sentences such as "NAME1 born at NAME2 in DATE" that NAME more likely than not represents a person and NAME a place and then convert the statement into a proposition about a person born at a given place and time. The changing price of tea in China, pedestrian birth and death dates, or other basic statements may not be truth and beauty in the Phaedrus, but a digital library that could plot the prices of various commodities in different markets over time, plot the various lifetimes of individuals, or extract and classify many events would be very useful. Services such as the Syllabus Finder1 and H-Bot2 (which Dan Cohen describes elsewhere in this issue of D-Lib) represent examples of information extraction already in use. H-Bot, in particular, builds on our evolving ability to extract information from very large corpora such as the billions of web pages available through the Google API. Aside from identifying higher order statements, however, users also want to search and browse named entities: they want to read about "C. P. E. Bach" rather than his father "Johann Sebastian" or about "Cambridge, Maryland", without hearing about "Cambridge, Massachusetts", Cambridge in the UK or any of the other Cambridges scattered around the world. Named entity identification is a well-established area with an ongoing literature. The Natural Language Processing Research Group at the University of Sheffield has developed its open source Generalized Architecture for Text Engineering (GATE) for years, while IBM's Unstructured Information Analysis and Search (UIMA) is "available as open source software to provide a common foundation for industry and academia." Powerful tools are thus freely available and more demanding users can draw upon published literature to develop their own systems. Major search engines such as Google and Yahoo also integrate increasingly sophisticated tools to categorize and identify places. The software resources are rich and expanding. The reference works on which these systems depend, however, are ill-suited for historical analysis. First, simple gazetteers and similar authority lists quickly grow too big for useful information extraction. They provide us with potential entities against which to match textual references, but existing electronic reference works assume that human readers can use their knowledge of geography and of the immediate context to pick the right Boston from the Bostons in the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN), but, with the crucial exception of geographic location, the TGN records do not provide any machine readable clues: we cannot tell which Bostons are large or small. If we are analyzing a document published in 1818, we cannot filter out those places that did not yet exist or that had different names: "Jefferson Davis" is not the name of a parish in Louisiana (tgn,2000880) or a county in Mississippi (tgn,2001118) until after the Civil War.
Although the Alexandria Digital Library provides far richer data than the TGN (5.9 vs. 1.3 million names), its added size lowers, rather than increases, the accuracy of most geographic name identification systems for historical documents: most of the extra 4.6 million names cover low frequency entities that rarely occur in any particular corpus. The TGN is sufficiently comprehensive to provide quite enough noise: we find place names that are used over and over (there are almost one hundred Washingtons) and semantically ambiguous (e.g., is Washington a person or a place?). Comprehensive knowledge sources emphasize recall but lower precision. We need data with which to determine which "Tribune" or "John Brown" a particular passage denotes. Secondly and paradoxically, our reference works may not be comprehensive enough. Human actors come and go over time. Organizations appear and vanish. Even places can change their names or vanish. The TGN does associate the obsolete name Siam with the nation of Thailand (tgn,1000142) - but also with towns named Siam in Iowa (tgn,2035651), Tennessee (tgn,2101519), and Ohio (tgn,2662003). Prussia appears but as a general region (tgn,7016786), with no indication when or if it was a sovereign nation. And if places do point to the same object over time, that object may have very different significance over time: in the foundational works of Western historiography, Herodotus reminds us that the great cities of the past may be small today, and the small cities of today great tomorrow (Hdt. 1.5), while Thucydides stresses that we cannot estimate the past significance of a place by its appearance today (Thuc. 1.10). In other words, we need to know the population figures for the various Washingtons in 1870 if we are analyzing documents from 1870. The foundations have been laid for reference works that provide machine actionable information about entities at particular times in history. The Alexandria Digital Library Gazetteer Content Standard8 represents a sophisticated framework with which to create such resources: places can be associated with temporal information about their foundation (e.g., Washington, DC, founded on 16 July 1790), changes in names for the same location (e.g., Saint Petersburg to Leningrad and back again), population figures at various times and similar historically contingent data. But if we have the software and the data structures, we do not yet have substantial amounts of historical content such as plentiful digital gazetteers, encyclopedias, lexica, grammars and other reference works to illustrate many periods and, even if we do, those resources may not be in a useful form: raw OCR output of a complex lexicon or gazetteer may have so many errors and have captured so little of the underlying structure that the digital resource is useless as a knowledge base. Put another way, human beings are still much better at reading and interpreting the contents of page images than machines. While people, places, and dates are probably the most important core entities, we will find a growing set of objects that we need to identify and track across collections, and each of these categories of objects will require its own knowledge sources. The following section enumerates and briefly describes some existing categories of documents that we need to mine for knowledge. This brief survey focuses on the format of print sources (e.g., highly structured textual "database" vs. unstructured text) to illustrate some of the challenges involved in converting our published knowledge into semantically annotated, machine actionable form.

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 1602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=1602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 1602, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Hermann Daly, der maßgebliche Theoretiker der Konzeption "starker" Nachhaltigkeit (Daly 1999), hat unlängst vor den Ausweitungen des Nachhaltigkeitskonzeptes gewarnt: "Eine Strategie, jegliches Konzept zu verharmlosen, besteht darin, seine Bedeutung so zu erweitern, daß fast alles darin enthalten ist. 1991 hatte das Schlagwort (gemeint ist "Nachhaltigkeit" - K.O.) bereits solches Gewicht erhalten, daß alles nachhaltig sein sollte, und der verhältnismäßig klare Begriff von der ökologischen Nachhaltigkeit des wirtschaftlichen Systems wurde unter so "hilfreichen' Erweiterungen wie soziale Nachhaltigkeit, politische Nachhaltigkeit, finanzielle Nachhaltigkeit, kulturelle Nachhaltigkeit und so weiter begraben. Wir waren jeden Tag darauf gefaßt, von der 'nachhaltigen Nachhaltigkeit' zu hören. Jede Definition, die nichts ausschließt, ist wertlos" (Daly 1999, S. 27). Dalys Befürchtung bezieht sich auf eine mögliche Überlagerung der ökologischen Ausrichtung, die Daly zufolge im Kern dessen steht, was Nachhaltigkeit begrifflich bedeutet, durch Ausdehnungen ins Beliebige und Uferlose. Diese Befürchtung erscheint mehr als berechtigt; denn ähnlich wie ein "Diskurs" -Jargon macht sich gegenwärtig ein diffuser "Nachhaltigkeits"-Jargon breit. Es wird daher zu recht die Frage gestellt, ob Nachhaltigkeit mehr sein könne als eine Worthülse, deren Inhalte beliebig seien. In dieser Situation erscheint es riskant, Probleme, die unter dem anderen MegaSchlagwort "Wissensgesellschaft " verhandelt werden, in den Kontext der Nachhaltigkeitsdebatte zu rücken. Ich möchte angesichts dieser grob skizzierten Situation gleichwohl der Frage nachgehen, ob und inwieweit die Ausweitungen der Nachhaltigkeitsidee auf Fragen der Bewahrung, Erzeugung und Verwendung von Wissen sinnvoll ist. Meine diesbezüglichen Thesen lauten: 1. Die Thematisierungsstrategien in bezug auf eine hier als möglich unterstellte Wissensdimension nachhaltiger Entwicklung hängen entscheidend von der jeweils vertretenen Grundkonzeption von Nachhaltigkeit ab. 2. Aus den gegenwärtig vertretenen Konzeptionen läßt sich immanent die Notwendigkeit begründen, die Kontroverse zwischen "starker" und "schwacher" Nachhaltigkeit auszutragen. 3. Das Konzept starker Nachhaltigkeit ist insgesamt vorzugswürdig. 4. Dieses Konzept läßt sich programmatisch für die Frage fruchtbar machen, was Nachhaltigkeit des Wissens bedeuten könnte. 5. Es können Grundlinien und Themata eines ökologisch ausgerichteten Forschungsprogramms identifiziert werden, das den Begriff des Naturkapitals in den Mittelpunkt rückt, aber über ökologische Fragen im engeren Sinne hinaus weist.

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=1064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The organization of information and the process of seeking information are fundamental activities, and thus fields of study, related to library and information science (LIS). Both endeavors are pragmatic in the sense that the ideas of information seeking behavior and the process of organizing information relates to some ideas of how users tend to behave when information is needed in order to fulfill a task of some kind. An important difference is, however, that information systems are primarily driven by principles of semantic structure, whereas users are driven by genuine information needs. Knowledge organization (KO), which is considered a subfield within LIS, has a particular focus on the organization of semantic units, and their relations (Hjørland 2008; Hodge 2000; Thellefsen 2010), however, it is our impression that the users information need, even though acknowledged, often is neglected or only mentioned en passant. The concept of information need is a core concept in LIS, and is, in particular, a core concept within the subfield of information retrieval (IR) that describes the state of uncertainty or anomalous knowledge state that precedes a user's information seeking behavior. Information need is, however, an intricate concept, and is only addressed in the LIS literature as some kind of elusive cognitive state. One may ask 'is an information need always individual or personal, and under what circumstances?' The present paper argues that the concept of information need may profit from a pragmatic and semeiotic perspective, which also may prove fruitful for KO. The paper thus discusses the concept of information need through three premises that is formulated based in Peirce's pragmatic semeiotic: 1) as the intricate relation between believe and doubt, 2) as a pragmatic process of clarification, and 3) as an activity of cognition taking place within a universe of discourse. The paper is rounded by a discussion of how this semeiotic analysis can be useful for KO.

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 2559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=2559,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 2559, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2559)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Die breiteste Definition stammt von Knowledge Ecology International: Dazu gehören "the social aspects of the creation, management and control of and access to knowledge resources", auch im Zusammenhang von intellectual "property rules" und "mechanisms to enhance access to knowledge, incentives and systems for the transfer of technology to developed countries", "efforts to protect privacy" und sogar "discourage nuclear proliferation", vor allem aber "issues as diverse as freedom of speech, authors' rights, access to public sector information, new models for publishing, organizing and sharing information", etc. etc. So breit angelegt, verschwimmt ein Begriff leicht ins Unverbindliche. Wissensökologie ist verwandt mit dem Begriff der Kommunikationsökologie, der schon Ende der 80er Jahre im Zusammenhang der Technikfolgenabschätzung entstanden ist. Angesichts weitgehender Eingriffe technisierter Kommunikation in alle individuellen und gesellschaftlichen Lebensbereiche/Umwelten sollen deren Auswirkungen auf Mensch, Natur und Gesellschaft untersucht und Vorschläge zur Entwicklung eines nachhaltigen und humanen Austauschs von technologieabhängiger Information entwickelt werden. Eine kommunikationsökologische Übertragung von Umweltverschmutzung in natürlichen Umgebungen auf solche in elektronischen Räumen (Spam, Datenmissbrauch, Orientierungslosigkeit, Verletzung von Privatheit) liegt nahe.

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 5097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=5097,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 5097, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5097)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Previous research investigated how to leverage the new type of social data available on the web, e.g., tags, ratings and reviews, in recommending and personalizing information. However, previous works mainly focused on predicting ratings using collaborative filtering or quantifying personalized ranking quality in simulations. As a consequence, the effect of social information in user's information search and information-selection behavior remains elusive. The objective of our research is to investigate the effects of social information on users' interactive search and information-selection behavior. We present a computational method and a system implementation combining different graph overlays: social, personal and search-time user input that are visualized for the user to support interactive information search. We report on a controlled laboratory experiment, in which 24 users performed search tasks using three system variants with different graphs as overlays composed from the largest publicly available social content and review data from Yelp: personal preferences, tags combined with personal preferences, and tags and social ratings combined with personal preferences. Data comprising search logs, questionnaires, simulations, and eye-tracking recordings show that: 1) the search effectiveness is improved by using and visualizing the social rating information and the personal preference information as compared to content-based ranking. 2) The need to consult external information before selecting information is reduced by the presentation of the effects of different overlays on the search results. Search effectiveness improvements can be attributed to the use of social rating and personal preference overlays, which was also confirmed in a follow-up simulation study. With the proposed method we demonstrate that social information can be incorporated to the interactive search process by overlaying graphs representing different information sources. We show that the combination of social rating information and personal preference information improves search effectiveness and reduce the need to consult external information. Our method and findings can inform the design of interactive search systems that leverage the information available on the social web.

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 5525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=5525,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 5525, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The growing study in information science of the role of the body in human information practice may benefit from the concepts developed around a set of fundamental forms of information previously published by the author. In applying these concepts to the study of human information practice, we see a framework that nicely names and locates the major components of an understanding of information seeking of all types, including that related to the body. We see information in nature, what happens to information when it encounters a nervous system, and how that information is used within nervous systems to both encode and embody the experiences of life. We see information not only in direct encounters with the body but also as it is experienced through extensions of the body, used for both input and output purposes. We also see information in the body in relation to a larger framework of forms of information encompassing both internal and external (exosomatic) information. Finally, a selective review is provided of related research and theory from biology, anthropology, psychology, and philosophy, which supports and deepens our understanding of the approach taken here to information embodiment.

0.0053026653 = product of:
  0.010605331 = sum of:
    0.010605331 = product of:
      0.021210661 = sum of:
        0.021210661 = weight(_text_:22 in 6983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021210661 = score(doc=6983,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 6983, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=6983)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16. 3.2008 12:22:08

0.004764588 = product of:
  0.009529176 = sum of:
    0.009529176 = product of:
      0.019058352 = sum of:
        0.019058352 = weight(_text_:systems in 158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019058352 = score(doc=158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.118839346 = fieldWeight in 158, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many definitions of information have been suggested throughout the history of information science. In this essay, the objective has been to provide a definition that is usable for the physical, biological and social meanings of the term, covering the various senses important to our field. Information has been defined as the pattern of organization of matter and energy. Information is everywhere except where there is total entropy. Living beings process, organize and ascribe meaning to information. Some pattern of organization that has been given meaning by a living being has been defined as information 2, while the above definition is information 1, when it is desirable to make the distinction. Knowledge has been defined as information given meaning and integrated with other contents of understanding. Meaning itself is rooted ultimately in biological survival. In the human being, extensive processing space in the brain has made possible the generation of extremely rich cultural and interpersonal meaning, which imbues human interactions. (In the short term, not all meaning that humans ascribe to information is the result of evolutionary processes. Our extensive brain processing space also enables us to hold beliefs for the short term that, over the long term, may actually be harmful to survival.) Data 1 has been defined as that portion of the entire information environment (including internal inputs) that is taken in, or processed, by an organism. Data 2 is that information that is selected or generated and used by human beings for research or other social purposes. This definition of information is not reductive--that is, it does not imply that information is all and only the most microscopic physical manifestation of matter and energy. Information principally exists for organisms at many emergent levels. A human being, for example, can see this account as tiny marks on a piece of paper, as letters of the alphabet, as words of the English language, as a sequence of ideas, as a genre of publication, as a philosophical position and so on. Thus, patterns of organization are not all equal in the life experience of animals. Some types of patterns are more important, some less so. Some parts of patterns are repetitive and can be compressed in mental storage. As mental storage space is generally limited and its maintenance costly to an animal, adaptive advantage accrues to the species that develops efficient storage. As a result, many species process elements of their environment in ways efficient and effective for their particular purposes; that is, as patterns of organization that are experienced as emergent wholes. We see a chair as a chair, not only as a pattern of light and dark. We see a string of actions by a salesperson as bait and switch, not just as a sequence of actions. We understand a series of statements as parts of a whole philosophical argument, not just as a series of sentences. The understanding of information embraced here recognizes and builds on the idea that these emergent wholes are efficient for storage and effective for the life purposes of human beings as successful animals (to date) on our planet. Thus, people experience their lives in terms of these emergent objects and relations, for the most part. Likewise, information is stored in retrieval systems in such a way that it can be represented to human beings in their preferred emergent forms, rather than in the pixels or bits in which the information is actually encoded within the information system.

0.004764588 = product of:
  0.009529176 = sum of:
    0.009529176 = product of:
      0.019058352 = sum of:
        0.019058352 = weight(_text_:systems in 137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019058352 = score(doc=137,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.118839346 = fieldWeight in 137, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=137)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Die Bedeutung von Information im Sinn des lateinischen "informare" als Gestaltung und Formung ist heute fast vergessen. Eine evolutionäre Theorie, die Information und Selbstorganisation in einem gemeinsamen Ansatz vereint, revitalisiert dieses Verständnis, indem sie dem Technikreduktionismus und der Verdinglichung in der Informatik entgegenwirkt. Weiters kann sie angesichts der globalen Probleme, die Überlebensprobleme der Menschheit sind, zu einem Verständnis der geschichtlichen Entwicklung im Sinn einer sozialen Systemgestaltung beitragen. Es wird eine Einteilung von Informationsbegriffen vorgestellt, die als eine Kategorie reduktionistische Informationsbegriffe umfaßt, die Information als Ding betrachten, das in allen Systemen und Kontexten das gleiche bedeutet. Eine andere Kategorie stellen antisynonymische Informationsbegriffe dar, die davon ausgehen, daß Systeme die Eigenschaft haben, Information autonom, unabhängig von ihrer Umwelt, erzeugen zu können. Dabei kann ein projektionistischer Analogismus identifiziert werden, der vom Informationsgeschehen eines Systems auf das Informationsgeschehen anderer Systeme schließt, und eine dualistische/pluralistische Äquivokation, die unüberbrückbare Unterschiede im Informationsgeschehen unterschiedlicher Systemtypen propagiert. Die dritte Kategorie stellen dialektische Ansätze dar, die davon ausgehen, daß Information in verschiedenen Systemarten sowohl gleiches als auch unterschiedliches bedeutet.

0.0040839324 = product of:
  0.008167865 = sum of:
    0.008167865 = product of:
      0.01633573 = sum of:
        0.01633573 = weight(_text_:systems in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01633573 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1018623 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).