Search (160 results, page 1 of 8)

0.3089534 = product of:
  0.72089124 = sum of:
    0.05490988 = product of:
      0.16472964 = sum of:
        0.16472964 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16472964 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25123185 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.16472964 = weight(_text_:2f in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16472964 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25123185 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
    0.16472964 = weight(_text_:2f in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16472964 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25123185 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
    0.16472964 = weight(_text_:2f in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16472964 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25123185 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
    0.16472964 = weight(_text_:2f in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16472964 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25123185 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
  0.42857143 = coord(6/14)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

Theme

Information

0.018204594 = product of:
  0.08495477 = sum of:
    0.07321842 = weight(_text_:elektronische in 5306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07321842 = score(doc=5306,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14013545 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5224832 = fieldWeight in 5306, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5306)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 5306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=5306,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5306, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5306)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 5306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=5306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5306, 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=5306)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

BK

05.38 (Neue elektronische Medien) <Kommunikationswissenschaft>

Classification

05.38 (Neue elektronische Medien) <Kommunikationswissenschaft>

Date

18. 9.2018 12:57:22

RSWK

Elektronische Überwachung

Subject

Elektronische Überwachung

Theme

Information

0.012222155 = product of:
  0.085555084 = sum of:
    0.015792815 = weight(_text_:information in 2110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015792815 = score(doc=2110,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3035872 = fieldWeight in 2110, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2110)
    0.06976227 = weight(_text_:kongress in 2110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06976227 = score(doc=2110,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19442701 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.35880953 = fieldWeight in 2110, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2110)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This book addresses some of the key questions that scientists have been asking themselves for centuries: what is knowledge? What is information? How do we know that we know something? How do we construct meaning from the perceptions of things? Although no consensus exists on a common definition of the concepts of information and communication, few can reject the hypothesis that information - whether perceived as « object » or as « process » - is a pre-condition for knowledge. Epistemology is the study of how we know things (anglophone meaning) or the study of how scientific knowledge is arrived at and validated (francophone conception). To adopt an epistemological stance is to commit oneself to render an account of what constitutes knowledge or in procedural terms, to render an account of when one can claim to know something. An epistemological theory imposes constraints on the interpretation of human cognitive interaction with the world. It goes without saying that different epistemological theories will have more or less restrictive criteria to distinguish what constitutes knowledge from what is not. If information is a pre-condition for knowledge acquisition, giving an account of how knowledge is acquired should impact our comprehension of information and communication as concepts. While a lot has been written on the definition of these concepts, less research has attempted to establish explicit links between differing theoretical conceptions of these concepts and the underlying epistemological stances. This is what this volume attempts to do. It offers a multidisciplinary exploration of information and communication as perceived in different disciplines and how those perceptions affect theories of knowledge.

Content

Introduction; 1. Fidelia Ibekwe-SanJuan and Thomas Dousa.- 2. Cybersemiotics: A new foundation for transdisciplinary theory of information, cognition, meaning, communication and consciousness; Soren Brier.- 3. Epistemology and the Study of Social Information within the Perspective of a Unified Theory of Information;Wolfgang Hofkirchner.- 4. Perception and Testimony as Data Providers; Luciano Floridi.- 5. Human communication from the semiotic perspective; Winfried Noth.- 6. Mind the gap: transitions between concepts of information in varied domains; Lyn Robinson and David Bawden.- 7. Information and the disciplines: A conceptual meta-analysis; Jonathan Furner.- 8. Epistemological Challenges for Information Science; Ian Cornelius.- 9. The nature of information science and its core concepts; Birger Hjorland.- 10. Visual information construing: bistability as a revealer of mediating patterns; Sylvie Leleu-Merviel. - 11. Understanding users' informational constructs via a triadic method approach: a case study; Michel Labour. - 12. Documentary languages and the demarcation of information units in textual information: the case of Julius O. Kaisers's Systematic Indexing

RSWK

Information / Kommunikation / Wissen / Informations- und Dokumentationswissenschaft / Kongress / Lyon <2011>

Subject

Information / Kommunikation / Wissen / Informations- und Dokumentationswissenschaft / Kongress / Lyon <2011>

Theme

Information

0.010505356 = product of:
  0.049024995 = sum of:
    0.01868631 = weight(_text_:information in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01868631 = score(doc=1296,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3592092 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
    0.020970564 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020970564 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
    0.009368123 = product of:
      0.028104367 = sum of:
        0.028104367 = weight(_text_:22 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028104367 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1296, 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=1296)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

I analyze the text of an article that appeared in this journal in 2007 that published the results of a questionnaire in which a number of experts were asked to define the concepts of data, information, and knowledge. I apply standard information retrieval techniques to build a list of the most frequent terms in each set of definitions. I then apply information extraction techniques to analyze how the top terms are used in the definitions. As a result, I draw data-driven conclusions about the aggregate opinion of the experts. I contrast this with the original analysis of the data to provide readers with an alternative viewpoint on what the data tell us.

Date

16. 6.2014 19:22:57

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.6, S.1279-1287

Theme

Information

0.00948675 = product of:
  0.06640725 = sum of:
    0.024466123 = weight(_text_:information in 543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024466123 = score(doc=543,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.47031528 = fieldWeight in 543, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=543)
    0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194113 = score(doc=543,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 543, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=543)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Interactive information seeking, behaviour and retrieval. Eds.: Ruthven, I. u. D. Kelly

Theme

Information

0.0083795 = product of:
  0.0586565 = sum of:
    0.022334414 = weight(_text_:information in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022334414 = score(doc=1853,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.42933714 = fieldWeight in 1853, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1853)
    0.036322083 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036322083 = score(doc=1853,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 1853, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1853)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Scholars have uncovered abundant data about the history of the term "information," as well as some of its many combined phrases (e.g., "information science," "information retrieval," and "information technology"). Many other compounds that involve "information" seem, however, not to have a known origin yet. In this article, further information about the phrase "information storage and retrieval" is provided. Knowing the history of terms and their associated concepts is an important prescription against poor terminological phrasing and theoretical confusion.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.6, S.1299-1302

Theme

Information

0.008244109 = product of:
  0.057708763 = sum of:
    0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 5546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03856498 = score(doc=5546,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 5546, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5546)
    0.019143783 = weight(_text_:information in 5546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019143783 = score(doc=5546,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36800325 = fieldWeight in 5546, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5546)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

In response to the perceived (by some) onset of an information society, historians have begun to study its roots and antecedents. The past is replete with the rise, fall, and transformation of systems of information, which are not to be confused with the narrower computer-mediated world of information systems. The history of systems of information-which for digestibility can be labeled information history-lacks neither scale nor scope. Systems of information have played a critical role in the transition to, and subsequent development of, capitalism; the growth of the state, especially the modern, nation-state; the rise of modernity, science, and the public sphere; imperialism; and geopolitics. In the context of these epochal shifts and episodes in human thinking and social organization, this essay presents a critical bibliographic survey of histories-outside the well-trodden paths of library and information-science history-that have foregrounded, or made reference to, a wide variety of systems of information.

Theme

Information

0.0076276707 = product of:
  0.05339369 = sum of:
    0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03856498 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 5006, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5006)
    0.01482871 = weight(_text_:information in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01482871 = score(doc=5006,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 5006, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5006)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The paper evaluates the data-information-knowledge-wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy. This hierarchy, also known as the `knowledge hierarchy', is part of the canon of information science and management. Arguments are offered that the hierarchy is unsound and methodologically undesirable. The paper identifies a central logical error that DIKW makes. The paper also identifies the dated and unsatisfactory philosophical positions of operationalism and inductivism as the philosophical backdrop to the hierarchy. The paper concludes with a sketch of some positive theories, of value to information science, on the nature of the components of the hierarchy: that data is anything recordable in a semantically and pragmatically sound way, that information is what is known in other literature as `weak knowledge', that knowledge also is `weak knowledge' and that wisdom is the possession and use, if required, of wide practical knowledge, by an agent who appreciates the fallible nature of that knowledge.

Source

Journal of information science. 35(2009) no.2, S.131-142

Theme

Information

0.007010835 = product of:
  0.049075846 = sum of:
    0.038986187 = weight(_text_:web in 537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038986187 = score(doc=537,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 537, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=537)
    0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010089659 = score(doc=537,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 537, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=537)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The Internet has substantially increased the online accessibility of scholarly publications and allowed researchers to access relevant information efficiently across different journals and databases (Costa & Meadows, ). Because of online accessibility, academic researchers tend to read more, and reading has become more superficial (Olle & Borrego, ), such that information overload has become an important issue. Given this circumstance, how the Internet affects knowledge transfer, or, more specifically, the citation behavior of researchers, has become a recent focus of interest. This study assesses the effects of the Internet on citation patterns in terms of 4 characteristics of cited documents: topic relevance, author status, journal prestige, and age of references. This work hypothesizes that academic scholars cite more topically relevant articles, more articles written by lower status authors, articles published in less prestigious journals, and older articles with online accessibility. The current study also hypothesizes that researcher knowledge level moderates such Internet effects. We chose the "IT and Group" subject area and collected 241 documents published in the pre-web period (1991-1995) and 867 documents published in the web-prevalent period (2006-2010) in the Web of Science database. The references of these documents were analyzed to test the proposed hypotheses, which are significantly supported by the empirical results.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.11, S.2182-2194

Theme

Information

0.006981327 = product of:
  0.04886929 = sum of:
    0.032137483 = weight(_text_:wide in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032137483 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
    0.016731806 = weight(_text_:information in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016731806 = score(doc=296,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.32163754 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Purpose The concept of information is central to several fields of research and professional practice. So many definitions have been put forward that complete inventory is unachievable while authors have failed to reach a consensus. In the face of the present impasse, innovative proposals could rouse information theorists to action, but literature surveys tend to emphasize the common traits of definitions. Reviewers are inclined to iron out originality in information models; thus the purpose of this paper is to discover the creativity of authors attempting to define the concept of information and to stimulate the progress of studies in this field. Design/methodology/approach Because the present inquiry could be influenced and distorted by personal criteria and opinions, the authors have adopted precise criteria and guidelines. It could be said the present approach approximates a statistical methodology. Findings The findings of this paper include (1) The authors found 32 original definitions of information which sometimes current surveys have overlooked. (2) The authors found a relation between information theories and advances in information technology. (3) Overall, the authors found that researchers take account of a wide variety of perspectives yet overlook the notion of information as used by computing practitioners such as electronic engineers and software developers. Research limitations/implications The authors comment on some limitations of the procedure that was followed. Results 1 and 3 open up new possibilities for theoretical research in the information domain. Originality/value This is an attempt to conduct a bibliographical inquiry driven by objective and scientific criteria; its value lies in the fact that final report has not been influenced by personal choice or arbitrary viewpoints.

Theme

Information

0.006328826 = product of:
  0.044301778 = sum of:
    0.023118312 = weight(_text_:information in 4474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023118312 = score(doc=4474,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.44440612 = fieldWeight in 4474, product of:
          6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
            42.0 = termFreq=42.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4474)
    0.021183468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021183468 = score(doc=4474,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 4474, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4474)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This article proposes a theory of information need for information retrieval (IR). Information need traditionally denotes the start state for someone seeking information, which includes information search using an IR system. There are two perspectives on information need. The dominant, computer science perspective is that the user needs to find an answer to a well-defined question which is easy for the user to formulate into a query to the system. Ironically, information science's best known model of information need (Taylor, 1968) deems it to be a "black box"-unknowable and nonspecifiable by the user in a query to the information system. Information science has instead devoted itself to studying eight adjacent or surrogate concepts (information seeking, search and use; problem, problematic situation and task; sense making and evolutionary adaptation/information foraging). Based on an analysis of these eight adjacent/surrogate concepts, we create six testable propositions for a theory of information need. The central assumption of the theory is that while computer science sees IR as an information- or answer-finding system, focused on the user finding an answer, an information science or user-oriented theory of information need envisages a knowledge formulation/acquisition system.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.7, S.1216-1231

Theme

Information

0.0054600392 = product of:
  0.03822027 = sum of:
    0.019725623 = weight(_text_:web in 5097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019725623 = score(doc=5097,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 5097, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5097)
    0.018494649 = weight(_text_:information in 5097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018494649 = score(doc=5097,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3555249 = fieldWeight in 5097, product of:
          6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
            42.0 = termFreq=42.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5097)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

Source

Information processing and management. 53(2017) no.6, S.1269-1286

Theme

Information

0.0054164683 = product of:
  0.037915275 = sum of:
    0.016731806 = weight(_text_:information in 1529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016731806 = score(doc=1529,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.32163754 = fieldWeight in 1529, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1529)
    0.021183468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021183468 = score(doc=1529,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 1529, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1529)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Anyone who has clarified a thought or prompted a response during a conversation by drawing a picture has exploited the potential of image making to convey information. Images are increasingly ubiquitous in daily communication due to advances in visually enabled information and communication technologies (ICT), such as information visualization applications, image retrieval systems, and virtual collaborative work tools. Although images are often used in social contexts, information science research concerned with the visual representation of information typically focuses on the image artifact and system building. To learn more about image making as a form of social interaction and as a form of information practice, a qualitative study examined face-to-face conversations involving the creation of ad hoc visualizations (i.e., "napkin drawings"). Interactional sociolinguistic concepts of conversational involvement and coordination guided multimodal analysis of video-recorded interactions that included spontaneous drawing. Findings show patterns in communicative activities associated with the visual representation of information. Furthermore, the activity of mark making contributes to the maintenance of conversational involvement in ways that are not always evident in the drawn artifact. This research has implications for the design and evaluation of visually enabled virtual collaboration environments, visual information extraction and retrieval systems, and data visualization tools.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.11, S.2233-2247

Theme

Information

0.005187311 = product of:
  0.036311176 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 3163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=3163,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3163, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3163)
    0.018876024 = weight(_text_:information in 3163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018876024 = score(doc=3163,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3628561 = fieldWeight in 3163, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3163)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Purpose Arts-informed, visual research was conducted to document the pictorial metaphors that appear among original drawings of information. The purpose of this paper is to report the diversity of these pictorial metaphors, delineate their formal qualities as drawings, and provide a fresh perspective on the concept of information. Design/methodology/approach The project utilized pre-existing iSquare drawings of information that were produced by iSchool graduate students during a draw-and-write activity. From a data set of 417 images, 125 of the strongest pictorial metaphors were identified and subjected to cognitive metaphor theory. Findings Overwhelmingly, the favored source domain for envisioning information was nature. The most common pictorial metaphors were: Earth, web, tree, light bulb, box, cloud, and fishing/mining, and each brings different qualities of information into focus. The drawings were often canonical versions of objects in the world, leading to arrays of pictorial metaphors marked by their similarity. Research limitations/implications Less than 30 percent of the data set qualified as pictorial metaphors, making them a minority strategy for representing information as an image. The process to identify and interpret pictorial metaphors was highly subjective. The arts-informed methodology generated tensions between artistic and social scientific paradigms. Practical implications The pictorial metaphors for information can enhance information science education and fortify professional identity among information professionals. Originality/value This is the first arts-informed, visual study of information that utilizes cognitive metaphor theory to explore the nature of information. It strengthens a sense of history, humanity, nature, and beauty in our understanding of information today, and contributes to metaphor research at large.

Theme

Information

0.0049623027 = product of:
  0.03473612 = sum of:
    0.013980643 = weight(_text_:information in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013980643 = score(doc=1795,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
    0.020755477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020755477 = score(doc=1795,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23154683 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to show that uncertainty may be caused not only by a knowledge gap in the mind of a user with respect to a given subject or topic, but also by the various complexities associated with the information seeking and retrieval (IS&R) process in a digital environment. Design/methodology/approach - Both quantitative and qualitative studies were conducted to collect data from users in the higher education sector regarding whether or not they experienced uncertainty in relation to the IS&R process. Analysis: a correlation analysis was undertaken to establish whether there were any relationships between information-seeking activities and information-seeking problems. Findings - The findings of this research show that uncertainty existed at different stages of the IS&R process amongst users. It was established that uncertainty was caused by a number of information-seeking activities and information-seeking problems, and that such uncertainty could continue over the course of successive search sessions, leading to the proposal of a new model of uncertainty. Research limitations/implications - The proposed model of uncertainty should contribute to a better understanding of the issues related to IS&R in a digital environment. Practical implications - A number of benefits could be realised in systems design from the application of this model in terms of reducing the negative impact of uncertainty, while at the same time helping users to gain from the positive aspects of uncertainty in IS&R.
Originality/value - The general consensus is that uncertainty is a mental state of users reflecting a gap in knowledge which triggers an IS&R process, and that the gap is reduced as relevant information is found, and thus that the uncertainty disappears as the search process concludes. However, in the present study it is argued that some form of uncertainty is always associated with some part of the IS&R process and that it also fluctuates throughout the IS&R process. Users may therefore feel uncertain at any stage of the IS&R process and this may be related to: the initial information need and expression of that need, the search process itself, including identification of relevant systems, services and resources; and the assessment of, and reaction to, the results produced by the search process. Uncertainty may be unresolved, or even increase, as the user progresses, often iteratively, through the IS&R process and may remain even after its completion, resulting in what may be called a persistent uncertainty. In other words, this research hypothesises that, in addition to the uncertainty that triggers the information search process (Wilson et al., 2000), users suffer from varying degrees of uncertainty at every stage of the information search and retrieval process, and that in turn, triggers different information-seeking behaviours.

Theme

Information

0.0047981525 = product of:
  0.033587065 = sum of:
    0.01664029 = weight(_text_:information in 3407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01664029 = score(doc=3407,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.31987834 = fieldWeight in 3407, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3407)
    0.016946774 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016946774 = score(doc=3407,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 3407, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3407)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Content

Introduction: Philosophy's Relevance in Computing and Information Science - Ruth Hagengruber and Uwe V.Riss Part I: Philosophy of Computing and Information 1 The Fourth Revolution in our Self-Understanding - Luciano Floridi -- 2 Information Transfer as a Metaphor - Jakob Krebs -- 3 With Aristotle towards a Differentiated Concept of Information? - Uwe Voigt -- 4 The Influence of Philosophy on the Understanding of Computing and Information - Klaus Fuchs-Kittowski -- Part II: Complexity and System Theory 5 The Emergence of Self-Conscious Systems: From Symbolic AI to Embodied Robotics - Klaus Mainzer -- 6 Artificial Intelligence as a New Metaphysical Project - Aziz F. Zambak Part III: Ontology 7 The Relevance of Philosophical Ontology to Information and Computer Science - Barry Smith -- 8 Ontology, its Origins and its Meaning in Information Science - Jens Kohne -- 9 Smart Questions: Steps towards an Ontology of Questions and Answers - Ludwig Jaskolla and Matthias Rugel Part IV: Knowledge Representation 10 Sophisticated Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Requires Philosophy - Selmer Bringsjord, Micah Clark and Joshua Taylor -- 11 On Frames and Theory-Elements of Structuralism Holger Andreas -- 12 Ontological Complexity and Human Culture David J. Saab and Frederico Fonseca Part V: Action Theory 13 Knowledge and Action between Abstraction and Concretion - Uwe V.Riss -- 14 Action-Directing Construction of Reality in Product Creation Using Social Software: Employing Philosophy to Solve Real-World Problems - Kai Holzweifiig and Jens Krüger -- 15 An Action-Theory-Based Treatment ofTemporal Individuals - Tillmann Pross -- 16 Four Rules for Classifying Social Entities - Ludger Jansen Part VI: Info-Computationalism 17 Info-Computationalism and Philosophical Aspects of Research in Information Sciences - Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic -- 18 Pancomputationalism: Theory or Metaphor ? - Vincent C. Mutter Part VII: Ethics 19 The Importance of the Sources of Professional Obligations - Francis C. Dane

Footnote

Vgl.: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/philosophy-computing-and-information-science/EFE440F6D9884BD733C19D1BF535045B.

LCSH

Ontologies (Information retrieval)
Knowledge representation (Information theory)

RSWK

Daten / Information / Wissen

Subject

Daten / Information / Wissen
Ontologies (Information retrieval)
Knowledge representation (Information theory)

Theme

Information

0.004760462 = product of:
  0.033323232 = sum of:
    0.029287368 = weight(_text_:elektronische in 3973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029287368 = score(doc=3973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14013545 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20899329 = fieldWeight in 3973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3973)
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 3973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=3973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 3973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3973)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Das Internet, elektronische Medien und intelligente Wissenssysteme haben unseren Umgang mit Wissen grundlegend verändert - und mit ihm unsere traditionellen Begriffe von Wissen und Rationalität. Wolfgang Neuser, Philosophieprofessor an der TU Kaiserslautern, stellt in seiner begriffstheoretischen Untersuchung einen Wissensbegriff vor, der einen neuen Schlüssel zum Verständnis ideengeschichtlicher Epochen, kultureller Traditionen und Konflikte in traditionellen und nichttraditionellen Entwicklungsphasen einer Gesellschaft liefert: Wissen ist ein sich selbst organisierendes und stabilisierendes System, in dem der Mensch seine Mittelpunktstellung als denkendes Subjekt verloren hat: Was von den menschlichen Akteuren bleibt, ist das Individuum, das sein individuelles Wissen aus der Interaktion mit Allgemeinwissen bezieht.

Theme

Information

0.004529155 = product of:
  0.031704083 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 5078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=5078,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 5078, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5078)
    0.014268933 = weight(_text_:information in 5078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014268933 = score(doc=5078,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 5078, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5078)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

A clear line of argument can be set out to link the (passive) intellectual freedom rights offered by Article Nineteen of the United Nations' Universal Declaration on Human Rights, to a consequent responsibility on governments, professionals and civil society activists for the (active) creation of suitable conditions for the effective exercise of intellectual freedom. Commentators on media in society and socially responsible computing are also increasingly drawing conclusions of this kind and stressing the importance of Media Literacy and Computer Literacy. This line of argument naturally directs attention towards the rationale currently offered for Information Literacy as a focus of professional activity. Whilst there are many elaborately worked-out programmes for Information Literacy instruction, these have so far been largely derived from practical perceptions of need. However, broad statements such as the Prague Declaration 'Towards an Information Literate Society' of 2003 and the Alexandria Proclamation of 2005 can be seen as beginning to point towards a rationale for Information Literacy activities rooted in human rights, Article Nineteen in particular. The contention is that starting from a human rights perspective leads towards a strong, inclusive interpretation of Information Literacy. This subsumes Media Literacy, Computer Literacy, Web Literacy and, to a considerable extent, Civic Literacy into a model that serves human needs rather than the established priorities of information professionals. The value of this approach for both practice and research is stressed.

Theme

Information

0.0043540057 = product of:
  0.03047804 = sum of:
    0.019771613 = weight(_text_:information in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019771613 = score(doc=300,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.38007212 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
    0.010706427 = product of:
      0.032119278 = sum of:
        0.032119278 = weight(_text_:22 in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032119278 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to organize the extensive field and to compile the complete list of information limits. Design/methodology/approach - A thorough analysis of literature from the field beginning with the 1960s up to the present has been performed. Findings - A universal typology of information limits has been proposed. A list of barriers mentioned in the literature of the subject has been compiled. Research limitations/implications - The term "information limits" is not commonly used. Originality/value - The complete list of information limits with bibliographical hints (helpful for future research) is presented.

Date

12. 7.2011 18:22:52

Theme

Information

0.0041579856 = product of:
  0.029105898 = sum of:
    0.01712272 = weight(_text_:information in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01712272 = score(doc=1064,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
    0.0119831795 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0119831795 = score(doc=1064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

Theme

Information