Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.009241782 = product of:
  0.05545069 = sum of:
    0.05545069 = weight(_text_:world in 3382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05545069 = score(doc=3382,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.36034414 = fieldWeight in 3382, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3382)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The first aim is to provide well-articulated concepts by thinking through elementary phenomena of today's world, focusing on privacy and the digital, to clarify who we are in the cyberworld - hence a phenomenology of digital whoness. The second aim is to engage critically, hermeneutically with older and current literature on privacy, including in today's emerging cyberworld. Phenomenological results include concepts of i) self-identity through interplay with the world, ii) personal privacy in contradistinction to the privacy of private property, iii) the cyberworld as an artificial, digital dimension in order to discuss iv) what freedom in the cyberworld can mean, whilst not neglecting v) intercultural aspects and vi) the EU context.

0.008475992 = product of:
  0.05085595 = sum of:
    0.05085595 = product of:
      0.076283924 = sum of:
        0.038314294 = weight(_text_:29 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038314294 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14083174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
        0.03796963 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03796963 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2848, 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=2848)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

23.10.1996 17:26:29

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 22(1998) H.3, S.344-353

0.0067998245 = product of:
  0.040798947 = sum of:
    0.040798947 = weight(_text_:web in 5783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040798947 = score(doc=5783,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 5783, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5783)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Um die philosophische Hermeneutik ist es still geworden. Sie war einer der großen Entwürfe des 20. Jahrhunderts mit Wurzeln im Idealismus des ausgehenden 19. Jahrhunderts. Was bedeutet einen Text, eine Aussage oder ein Bild verstehen? Was bedeutet ein geschichtliches Ereignis oder das Leben eines Menschen verstehen`? Wie kann man die Kultur einer ganzen Epoche verstehen? Wie lassen sich Naturvorgänge verstehen? Und wie versteht man technische Erfindungen? Hermeneutik als Lehre vom Verstehen hat es zunächst mit dem eigenen Selbstverständnis zu tun. Das ist sozusagen ihr philosophisches Markenzeichen. Wenn man mit etwas konfrontiert wird, was man nicht versteht - und damit werden wir in der digital vernetzten Welt täglich konfrontiert -, ergibt sich die Frage nach dem Verstehen von Verstehen fast von selbst. Was heißt etwas "nicht verstehen"? Nehmen wir an. der Leser dieser Zeilen versteht nicht, was Hermeneutik überhaupt besagt und warum im Nachwort zu einem Buch über Semantic Web die Rede davon sein soll. Oder umgekehrt: Jemand, der glaubt, genau zu wissen, was Hermeneutik bedeutet, kann mit dem Begriff Semantic Web nichts anfangen und hält deshalb ein solches Nachwort für irreführend. Beide potentielle Leser haben ein Problem: Sollte man sich auf das Unbekannte einlassen und Zeit und Mühe aufwenden, um etwas Neues und scheinbar Relevantes zu verstehen? Jemand der mit beiden Begriffen nichts anfangen kann, wird vermutlich dieses Nachwort nicht lesen, denn man liest nur das, worüber man glaubt, einigermaßen etwas zu verstehen, in der Erwartung etwas zu finden, was man vorher nicht wusste.

Source

Semantic Web: Wege zur vernetzten Wissensgesellschaft. Hrsg.: T. Pellegrini, u. A. Blumauer

0.0054457723 = product of:
  0.032674633 = sum of:
    0.032674633 = weight(_text_:world in 1869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032674633 = score(doc=1869,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 1869, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1869)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The first part of this article deals with some initiatives concerning the role of information ethics for Africa, such as the New Partnership for Africa's Development, United Nations Information Communications Technology (ICT), and the African Information Society Initiative particularly since the World Summit on the Information Society. Information Ethics from Africa is a young academic field, and not much has been published so far on the impact of ICT on African societies and cultures from a philosophical perspective. The second part of the article analyzes some recent research on this matter particularly with regard to the concept of ubuntu. Finally, the article addresses some issues of the African Conference on Information Ethics held February 3-5, 2007, in Pretoria, South Africa.[The following essay is adapted from a keynote address delivered at the Africa Information Ethics Conference in Pretoria, South Africa, February 5-7, 2007. Under the patronage of UNESCO, sponsored by the South African government, and organized with assistance from the Department of Information Science at the University of Pretoria, the School of Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and the supporters and members of the International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE), the theme of the conference was Ethical Challenges in the Information Age: The Joy of Sharing Knowledge. The full version of the address as well as selected articles from the conference were published in Vol. 7 of ICIE's online journal, International Review of Information Ethics (for more information, visit http://icie.zkm.de)]

0.004620891 = product of:
  0.027725345 = sum of:
    0.027725345 = weight(_text_:world in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027725345 = score(doc=5079,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.18017207 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.
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).

0.004257144 = product of:
  0.025542863 = sum of:
    0.025542863 = product of:
      0.07662859 = sum of:
        0.07662859 = weight(_text_:29 in 8821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07662859 = score(doc=8821,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14083174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 8821, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8821)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 1.1997 18:49:05

0.004257144 = product of:
  0.025542863 = sum of:
    0.025542863 = product of:
      0.07662859 = sum of:
        0.07662859 = weight(_text_:29 in 614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07662859 = score(doc=614,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14083174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 614, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=614)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 1.1997 18:49:05

0.004218848 = product of:
  0.025313087 = sum of:
    0.025313087 = product of:
      0.07593926 = sum of:
        0.07593926 = weight(_text_:22 in 2684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07593926 = score(doc=2684,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2684, 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=2684)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Pages

22 S

0.0032674633 = product of:
  0.01960478 = sum of:
    0.01960478 = weight(_text_:world in 3050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01960478 = score(doc=3050,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.12740089 = fieldWeight in 3050, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3050)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Die beschleunigte Wissensgesellschaft ist jene Gesellschaft, in der sich jede/r ständig vergewissern muss und will, wo er/sie sich gerade befindet. "Ich bin hier - wo bist Du?" Diese typische Frage eines Handy-Nutzers zeigt zunächst eine scheinbar banale Veränderung gegenüber dem herkömmlichen Telefon. In Wahrheit bedeutet es aber dass wir ständig und überall ansprechbar sind. Man ist nicht mehr bereit für eine alltägliche oder geschäftliche Antwort lange zu warten. Die Konsequenz dieser Beschleunigung lautet meistens Hektik und Stress. Diese Veränderung der Kommunikationsverhältnisse - und Kommunikation ist der Kitt menschlichen Zusammenseins - vollzieht sich auf der Grundlage der digitalen Weltvernetzung bekannt als das Internet. Das Handy ist nicht nur die bloße Summe herkömmlicher Geräte, nämlich Telefon, Kamera Fax und dergleichen, sondern diese Summe auf Internet-Basis. Das verändert grundlegend nicht nur unsere Arbeits- sondern auch unsere sonstigen Lebensverhältnisse in nicht geringerem Maße als es bei den Transport- und Kommunikationsmitteln im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert der Fall gewesen ist. Der springende Punkt ist dabei zweifellos die Interaktivität und zwar im Unterschied zu jenen Formen der Verbreitung digitaler Botschaften, die das Monopol der Massenmedien des 20. Jahrhunderts bildeten. Das Neue besteht nämlich in der Möglichkeit eines jeden im digitalen Netz Eingeloggten messages nicht nur an Einzelne, sondern auch an viele zu senden oder sie von ihnen zu empfangen und mit solchen messages direkt oder indirekt eine Wirkung zu erzielen. Diese interaktive und wirkungsmächtige Struktur der digitalen Vernetzung stellt jene hierarchische Monopolstruktur der Massenmedien in Frage, die aus dem Empfänger der Sendung nur einen Rezipienten machen, während jetzt im Prinzip jeder Empfänger zugleich ein potenzieller Sender und ein digital Handelnder wird' jenseits der individualistischen Version des klassischen Telefons. Wenn wir davon ausgehen, dass menschliches Wissen das Produkt sozialer Interaktion und die Grundlage unseres politischen, kulturellen und ökonomischen Lebens ist' dann leuchtet ein, dass eine solche Veränderung der Kommunikationstechnik zugleich eine Beschleunigung in der Wissensproduktion, -verbreitung und -nutzung mit sich bringt, die sich hinter dem verbrauchten Schlagwort von der Wissensgesellschaft oder auch von der Informationsgesellschaft verbirgt. Diese Beschleunigung führt zu einem neuen Selbstverhältnis im Sinne nämlich eines vernetzten Subjekts, das die Spannung zwischen Autonomie und Heteronomie im digitalen Netz anders begreifen und gestalten lernen muss als bisher. Wir sind digital vernetzt. Das ist der Grundsatz der vernetzten Wissensgesellschaft. Was wir über die Welt wissen, wissen wir nicht mehr bloß durch die Massenmedien, wie noch Niklas Luhmann behauptete, sondern durch vielfältige interaktive digitale Kanäle' die inzwischen weitgehend die Basis unseres In-der-Welt-seins bilden. Wer aber sind 'wir'? Die digitalen Kanäle verbinden und spalten uns zugleich, sofern sie nämlich aus unterschiedlichen Gründen, für einen großen Teil der Weltbevölkerung de facto unzugänglich bleiben. Wir sind vernetzt gespalten. Wir pflegen diesen Zustand mit dem Ausdruck, digitale Spaltung, (digital divide) zu kennzeichnen, wohl wissend' dass damit bisherige ökonomische, politische, technische und kulturelle Spaltungen berührt sind. Die ethisch-politische Debatte um die künftige Wissensgesellschaft beschäftigt zur Zeit den von den Vereinten Nationen einberufenen Weltgipfel über die Informationsgesellschaft (World Summit an the Information Society), worauf ich noch zu sprechen komme.

0.0030408173 = product of:
  0.018244904 = sum of:
    0.018244904 = product of:
      0.054734707 = sum of:
        0.054734707 = weight(_text_:29 in 2444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054734707 = score(doc=2444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14083174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 2444, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2444)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 1.1997 18:49:05

0.0024326537 = product of:
  0.014595922 = sum of:
    0.014595922 = product of:
      0.043787766 = sum of:
        0.043787766 = weight(_text_:29 in 5487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043787766 = score(doc=5487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14083174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 5487, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5487)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

23.10.1996 17:26:29

0.0018244905 = product of:
  0.0109469425 = sum of:
    0.0109469425 = product of:
      0.032840826 = sum of:
        0.032840826 = weight(_text_:29 in 5075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032840826 = score(doc=5075,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14083174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5075, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5075)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 1.1997 18:49:05

0.0015204087 = product of:
  0.009122452 = sum of:
    0.009122452 = product of:
      0.027367353 = sum of:
        0.027367353 = weight(_text_:29 in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027367353 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14083174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5006, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5006)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 1.1997 18:49:05

0.0015204087 = product of:
  0.009122452 = sum of:
    0.009122452 = product of:
      0.027367353 = sum of:
        0.027367353 = weight(_text_:29 in 456) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027367353 = score(doc=456,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14083174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 456, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=456)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 1.1997 18:49:05