Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

0.061871223 = product of:
  0.12374245 = sum of:
    0.12374245 = sum of:
      0.07407948 = weight(_text_:library in 730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07407948 = score(doc=730,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.5380284 = fieldWeight in 730, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=730)
      0.049662966 = weight(_text_:22 in 730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049662966 = score(doc=730,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 730, 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=730)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The digital library is a socio-technical concept of great significance. It redefines the relationships between information providers and intermediaries and, potentially, transforms the way that services are delivered to users. This article, based on a British Library Research & Innovation Centre funded study, reviews current themes and directions in digital library research and scholarship. It locates the digital library in a simple work-oriented framework emphasising its social as well as its systems and informational dimensions. The article highlights differences in understanding of the digital library construct between the library and computer science communities and identifies some critical areas for further research.

Date

21. 1.2007 12:03:22

0.03883119 = product of:
  0.07766238 = sum of:
    0.07766238 = sum of:
      0.02799941 = weight(_text_:library in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02799941 = score(doc=683,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 683, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=683)
      0.049662966 = weight(_text_:22 in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049662966 = score(doc=683,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 683, 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=683)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Understanding information policy. Proceedings of a British Library funded Information Policy Unit Workshop, Cumberland Lodge, UK, 22-24 July 1996. Ed. by Ian Rowlands

0.024831483 = product of:
  0.049662966 = sum of:
    0.049662966 = product of:
      0.09932593 = sum of:
        0.09932593 = weight(_text_:22 in 844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09932593 = score(doc=844,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 844, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=844)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7. 6.2008 16:22:20

0.012415742 = product of:
  0.024831483 = sum of:
    0.024831483 = product of:
      0.049662966 = sum of:
        0.049662966 = weight(_text_:22 in 3361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049662966 = score(doc=3361,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3361, 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=3361)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.1-22

0.012247192 = product of:
  0.024494383 = sum of:
    0.024494383 = product of:
      0.048988767 = sum of:
        0.048988767 = weight(_text_:library in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048988767 = score(doc=648,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.35579824 = fieldWeight in 648, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the study was to compare an internet search engine, Google, with appropriate library databases and systems, in order to assess the relative value, strengths and weaknesses of the two sorts of system. Design/methodology/approach - A case study approach was used, with detailed analysis and failure checking of results. The performance of the two systems was assessed in terms of coverage, unique records, precision, and quality and accessibility of results. A novel form of relevance assessment, based on the work of Saracevic and others was devised. Findings - Google is superior for coverage and accessibility. Library systems are superior for quality of results. Precision is similar for both systems. Good coverage requires use of both, as both have many unique items. Improving the skills of the searcher is likely to give better results from the library systems, but not from Google. Research limitations/implications - Only four case studies were included. These were limited to the kind of queries likely to be searched by university students. Library resources were limited to those in two UK academic libraries. Only the basic Google web search functionality was used, and only the top ten records examined. Practical implications - The results offer guidance for those providing support and training for use of these retrieval systems, and also provide evidence for debates on the "Google phenomenon". Originality/value - This is one of the few studies which provide evidence on the relative performance of internet search engines and library databases, and the only one to conduct such in-depth case studies. The method for the assessment of relevance is novel.

0.010392087 = product of:
  0.020784173 = sum of:
    0.020784173 = product of:
      0.041568346 = sum of:
        0.041568346 = weight(_text_:library in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041568346 = score(doc=649,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Introduction. This short paper proposes that a unified concept of information as a form of self-organized complexity may be equally applicable to the physical, biological and human/social domains. This is seen as the evolutionary emergence of organized complexity in the physical universe, meaning in context in the biological domain, and understanding through knowledge in the human domain. Method.This study is based on analysis of literature from a wide range of disciplines. Conclusions.This perspective allows for the possibility that not only may the library/information sciences be able to draw insights from the natural sciences, but that library and information science research and scholarship may in turn contribute insights to these disciplines, normally thought of as more 'fundamental'.

Content

Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science-"Featuring the Future". - Vgl.: http://informationr.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis31.html.

0.009999789 = product of:
  0.019999579 = sum of:
    0.019999579 = product of:
      0.039999157 = sum of:
        0.039999157 = weight(_text_:library in 4432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039999157 = score(doc=4432,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 4432, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4432)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The contributions of the theories and practices of "documentation", located with the library/information disciplines, to the development of information society are real, but limited. The scope for further input is considerable.

0.009999789 = product of:
  0.019999579 = sum of:
    0.019999579 = product of:
      0.039999157 = sum of:
        0.039999157 = weight(_text_:library in 2982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039999157 = score(doc=2982,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 2982, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2982)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009899286 = product of:
  0.019798571 = sum of:
    0.019798571 = product of:
      0.039597142 = sum of:
        0.039597142 = weight(_text_:library in 4479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039597142 = score(doc=4479,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 4479, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The concepts of 'information literacy' and 'digital literacy' are described, and reviewed, by way of a literature survey and analysis. Related concepts, including computer literacy, library literacy, network literacy, Internet literacy and hyper-literacy are also discussed, and their relationships elucidated. After a general introduction, the paper begins with the basic concept of 'literacy', which is then expanded to include newer forms of literacy, more suitable for complex information environments. Some of these, for example library, media and computer literacies, are based largely on specific skills, but have some extension beyond them. They lead togeneral concepts, such as information literacy and digital literacy which are based on knowledge, perceptions and attitudes, though reliant on the simpler skills-based literacies

0.008660072 = product of:
  0.017320145 = sum of:
    0.017320145 = product of:
      0.03464029 = sum of:
        0.03464029 = weight(_text_:library in 706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03464029 = score(doc=706,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 706, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=706)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

At the heart of any discussion of the information sciences, at least when this discussion is held in the English language, lies the problem of the variant, and shifting, set of concepts and meanings of the terms 'library' and 'information'. The term 'information', in particular, has a variety of meanings in different contexts and communities of discourse, providing an excellent example of Wittgenstein's language game. This implies that any terminology built around this central concept is in danger of being constructed on 'shifting sands'. This article outlines, for the English language only, some of these diverse meanings of information, and their consequences for the terminology of the information sciences. It focuses on the variant relationships between information and related concepts, particularly data and knowledge. It also includes an account of the view information taken in the hard and soft methodologies of system science, as well as the new discipline of 'information physics'. From this, some remarks may be made on the changing meanings of the complex terms such as 'information technology' and 'information literacy', as well as those complex terms involving 'management', information management, knowledge management, document management etc. A similar, though shorter, treatment will de given to terminology around the 'library' concept, particularly in view of the change toward viewing a library as an organised virtual information space, rather than physical environment.

0.008485103 = product of:
  0.016970206 = sum of:
    0.016970206 = product of:
      0.033940412 = sum of:
        0.033940412 = weight(_text_:library in 653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033940412 = score(doc=653,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 653, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=653)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to review the nature of, and rationale for, user expectations in the digital library setting, and ways in which they may best be met and/or managed. Design/methodology/approach - An analysis of the literature, focusing on empirical studies, and bringing out main themes and issues. Findings - User expectations of digital libraries are often unrealistic, usually unrealistically high, mainly due to the ubiquity of the web search engine as an information environment. Expectations differ between user groups. Both meeting and managing expectations have been promoted as a solution; it is likely that a mix of the two will be most effective. More empirical and conceptual studies are needed. Ways of making the nature of digital library collections and their organisation "visible", embedded in a natural way within their interfaces, are desirable. Originality/value - This is the first paper to review the literature of this topic.

0.008485103 = product of:
  0.016970206 = sum of:
    0.016970206 = product of:
      0.033940412 = sum of:
        0.033940412 = weight(_text_:library in 4047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033940412 = score(doc=4047,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 4047, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4047)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to re-examine the proposal that Luciano Floridi's philosphy of information (PI) may be an appropriate conceptual foundation for the discipline of library and information science (LIS). Design/methodology/approach A selective literature review and analysis are carried out. Findings It is concluded that LIS is in need of a new conceptual framework, and that PI is appropriate for this purpose. Originality/value Floridi proposed a close relationship between PI and LIS more than a decade ago. Although various authors have addressed the aspects of this relationship since then, this is the first proposal from an LIS perspective that PI be adopted as a basis for LIS.

0.007999831 = product of:
  0.015999662 = sum of:
    0.015999662 = product of:
      0.031999324 = sum of:
        0.031999324 = weight(_text_:library in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031999324 = score(doc=255,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Managing information 5(1998) no.3, S.42 (L. Will); Electronic library 16(1998) no.4, S.266 (I. Fourie); Knowledge organization 26(1999) no.2, S.103-104 (M.P. Satija)

0.007999831 = product of:
  0.015999662 = sum of:
    0.015999662 = product of:
      0.031999324 = sum of:
        0.031999324 = weight(_text_:library in 3007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031999324 = score(doc=3007,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 3007, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3007)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This presentation gives an international comparison of performance measures of the public and national library services of Lithuania, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. Particular attention will be given to new methods of assessing the value of libraries, which go beyond simple counts of readers and transactions. The importance of treating performance measures as a part of strategic planning, rather than as an aim in itself, is emphasised.

0.0070709186 = product of:
  0.014141837 = sum of:
    0.014141837 = product of:
      0.028283674 = sum of:
        0.028283674 = weight(_text_:library in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028283674 = score(doc=607,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - To provide an analysis of the notion of "information poverty" in library and information science (LIS) by investigating concepts, interests and strategies leading to its construction and thus to examine its role as a constitutive element of the professional discourse. Design/methodology/approach - Starting from a Foucauldian notion of discourse, "information poverty" is examined as a statement in its relation to other statements in order to highlight assumptions and factors contributing to its construction. The analysis is based on repeated and close reading of 35 English language articles published in LIS journals between 1995 and 2005. Findings - Four especially productive discursive procedures are identified: economic determinism, technological determinism and the "information society", historicising the "information poor", and the library profession's moral obligation and responsibility. Research limitations/implications - The material selection is linguistically and geographically biased. Most of the included articles originate in English-speaking countries. Therefore, results and findings are fully applicable only in an English language context. Originality/value - The focus on overlapping and at times conflicting discursive procedures, i.e. the results of alliances and connections between statements, highlights how the "information poor" emerge as a category in LIS as the product of institutionally contingent, professional discourse. By challenging often unquestioned underlying assumptions, this article is intended to contribute to a critical examination of LIS discourse, as well as to the analysis of the discourses of information, which dominate contemporary society. It is furthermore seen to add to the development of discourse analytical approaches in LIS research.

0.0070709186 = product of:
  0.014141837 = sum of:
    0.014141837 = product of:
      0.028283674 = sum of:
        0.028283674 = weight(_text_:library in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028283674 = score(doc=816,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 816, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=816)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The paper seeks to outline an approach to a unified framework for understanding the concept of "information" in the physical, biological and human domains, and to see what links and interactions may be found between them. It also aims to re-examine the information science discipline, with a view to locating it in a larger context, so as to reflect on the possibility that information science may not only draw from these other disciplines, but that its insights may contribute to them. Design/methodology/approach - The paper takes the form of an extensive literature review and analysis, loosely based on the approaches of Stonier, Madden and Bates, and including analysis of both scientific and library/information literature. Findings - The paper identifies the concept of information as being identified with organised complexity in the physical domain, with meaning in context in the biological domain, and with Kvanvig's concept of understanding in the human domain. The linking thread is laws of emergent self-organised complexity, applicable in all domains. Argues that a unified perspective for the information sciences, based on Popperian ontology, may be derived, with the possibility of not merely drawing insights from physical and biological science, but also of contributing to them. Based on Hirst's educational philosophy, derives a definition for the information sciences around two poles: information science and library/information management.

0.0069998526 = product of:
  0.013999705 = sum of:
    0.013999705 = product of:
      0.02799941 = sum of:
        0.02799941 = weight(_text_:library in 2828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02799941 = score(doc=2828,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 2828, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2828)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

SIBRIS (Sandwich Interactive Browsing and Ranking Information System) is an interactive text retrieval system which has been developed to support the browsing of library and product files at Pfizer Central Research, Sandwich, UK. Once an initial ranking has been produced, the system will allow the user to select any document displayed on the screen at any point during the browse and to use that as the basis for another search. Facilities have been included to enable the user to keep track of the browse and to facilitate backtracking, thus allowing the user to move away from the original query to wander in and out of different areas of interest.

0.0059998734 = product of:
  0.011999747 = sum of:
    0.011999747 = product of:
      0.023999494 = sum of:
        0.023999494 = weight(_text_:library in 1659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023999494 = score(doc=1659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 1659, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The use of quantum concepts and formalisms in the information sciences is assessed through an analysis of published literature. Five categories are identified: use of loose analogies and metaphors between concepts in quantum physics and library/information science; use of quantum concepts and formalisms in information retrieval; use of quantum concepts and formalisms in studying meaning and concepts; quantum social science, in areas adjacent to information science; and the qualitative application of quantum concepts in the information disciplines. Quantum issues have led to demonstrable progress in information retrieval and semantic modelling, with less clear-cut progress elsewhere. Whether there may be a future "quantum turn" in the information sciences is debated, the implications of such a turn are considered, and a research agenda outlined.

0.0049998946 = product of:
  0.009999789 = sum of:
    0.009999789 = product of:
      0.019999579 = sum of:
        0.019999579 = weight(_text_:library in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019999579 = score(doc=5710,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 5710, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5710)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss Luciano Floridi's 2019 book The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design, the latest instalment in his philosophy of information (PI) tetralogy, particularly with respect to its implications for library and information studies (LIS). Design/methodology/approach Nine scholars with research interests in philosophy and LIS read and responded to the book, raising critical and heuristic questions in the spirit of scholarly dialogue. Floridi responded to these questions. Findings Floridi's PI, including this latest publication, is of interest to LIS scholars, and much insight can be gained by exploring this connection. It seems also that LIS has the potential to contribute to PI's further development in some respects. Research limitations/implications Floridi's PI work is technical philosophy for which many LIS scholars do not have the training or patience to engage with, yet doing so is rewarding. This suggests a role for translational work between philosophy and LIS. Originality/value The book symposium format, not yet seen in LIS, provides forum for sustained, multifaceted and generative dialogue around ideas.