Questions for Feb. 1

Buckland questions

Rating: 4

1) Buckland claims that whether a document, data, object, or event is informational is dependent upon the cirucumstances surrounding the document, data, object, or event. But lacking any context don’t objects, documents, etc still provide information about themselves? Would we be better off saying that whether a document, data, etc. is usefully informational is situational?

2) If we accept that information-as-thing is a Tangible Entity as in Buckland’s figure 1 then how do we classify information that comes from intangible sources? For example, when we feel emotion we receive information. But apprehension or glee or faith or whatever - these are not tangible objects or documents.

3) Are all information-as-thing items information by consensus? For example, is a phone book only informative because people agree that it is?

Capurro and Hjorland questions

Rating:3

1) Capurro and Hjorland suggest that rather than focusing on defining the term “information” it would be more beneficial for the IS field to look at the meaning of words like “signs,” “texts,” and “knowledge” (p. 350). If we accept this view shouldn’t we change the name of the field to Knowledge Science? Or Textual Science? How can we claim to be part of Information Science without bothering to define information?

2) Capurro cites himself for a work he did evaluating information's meaning throughout history. How does studying a word’s history or etymology help us understand its meaning today? Why does it matter how Virgil, or Plato, or Augustine used the word information? What do these writings tell us about the word’s meaning in our modern culture?

3) Capurro and Hjorland talk a lot about looking at various definitions of information from multiple fields. What are some of the differences between information in the arts & humanities and information in the sciences? Does the definition from one group more closely relate to information as we see it in the iSchool than the other? Do we combine these disparate definitions or maintain them as separate entities that are dealt with independent of each other?