SV: Foundations of Information Science

Dear Rafael (and discussion group),

I could not quite follow your answer about the human versus the physical
information concept, and Ill try to reformulate my question.

First, we are a group discussing FIS. In this group I know that Soren is
also connected to the LIS field, and that you have published
"Hermeneutic der Fachinformation" which I also regard as connected to
the LIS field. But most other people in the LIS field are not members of
this group, but have a lot of other journals, seminars, conferences, and
so on. And: Most members of this group may understand the concept
"information science" in quite another way than I do. So: What do we
mean by information science, and consequently: what do we mean by
information? Who have the authority to define these concepts?

Secondly, F. Machlup (1968) in the book "The study of information.
Interdisciplinary messages" claimed, that the concept of information
always has a human informant. Somebody is informing someone about
something. Information in the sense "DNA contains information about
individuals" is only information in a metaphorical sense (and should
thus be written in " " - as you told in your first answer). F. Machlup
is one opinion (or theory) about the concept of information. For my
purpose, I see a dilemma in adopting F.Machlup's view. The positive side
is that it helps delimit the object of information science. The negative
side is, that it does not allow studies comparing users utilization of
"texts" versus natural information sources (like DNA).

Many in this group may say, that they are not interested in limiting IS
to documents, texts, or what information professionals do in electronis
databases. They are interested in a much broader concept: everything
(physical, biological or mental) , that can inform everything else. If
this is the case, let us use a little time to discuss, what the
implications of the claim of such a science might be.

 
kind regards,
Birger

 
Received on Wed Dec 17 13:18:41 1997