Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03220429 = product of:
  0.06440858 = sum of:
    0.06440858 = sum of:
      0.046898607 = weight(_text_:2000 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046898607 = score(doc=2748,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051695216 = queryNorm
          0.22386816 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.01750997 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01750997 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051695216 = 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

0.02595362 = product of:
  0.05190724 = sum of:
    0.05190724 = product of:
      0.10381448 = sum of:
        0.10381448 = weight(_text_:2000 in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10381448 = score(doc=4530,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.49555326 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of documentation. 56(2000) no.1, S.27-41

Year

2000

0.012256979 = product of:
  0.024513958 = sum of:
    0.024513958 = product of:
      0.049027916 = sum of:
        0.049027916 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049027916 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, 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=5237)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

0.012256979 = product of:
  0.024513958 = sum of:
    0.024513958 = product of:
      0.049027916 = sum of:
        0.049027916 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049027916 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.22-36

0.010505982 = product of:
  0.021011963 = sum of:
    0.021011963 = product of:
      0.042023927 = sum of:
        0.042023927 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042023927 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.008754985 = product of:
  0.01750997 = sum of:
    0.01750997 = product of:
      0.03501994 = sum of:
        0.03501994 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03501994 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, 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=629)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13

0.008754985 = product of:
  0.01750997 = sum of:
    0.01750997 = product of:
      0.03501994 = sum of:
        0.03501994 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03501994 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, 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=1398)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.008754985 = product of:
  0.01750997 = sum of:
    0.01750997 = product of:
      0.03501994 = sum of:
        0.03501994 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03501994 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22