Rafael:
Your thoughtful response on notions of information is significant.
What can we learn from the checkered histories of taxonomies? Most
of them do not survive in time; the major exception being chemical
taxonomies.
If one wishes to to give birth to a substansive, then ought one begin
with an idea on how to conceive a concept?
The very modest success of my own efforts to create a taxonomy are
attributable to explorations at the roots. From the roots the
tributaries sprout; the tributaries contribute to the attributes of
the distributions (as this sentence demonstrates. :-) :-) )
I would be fearful of pre-mature adoption of software. Would you put
your mind under control of an unknown logician? Unless you are
referring to a "blank screen" / blackboard sort of nothingness.
I will be in Baden Baden in late July / early August. Would you like
explore potentialities in a more informal setting? I think we could
pare a list of 134 items into a preliminary form within an evening
(given enough wine!). At a minimum, the master list of 134 items
could furnish virtually endless combinations of puns!
Cheers
Jerry
>Jerry,
>
>yes, metaphor, metonomy and much more.
>
>Take a look at this:
>"Schrader [1986, p. 179] counted some 134 notions of information in our
>field! At the same time he observed that, on the one hand, the content of
>our domain was taken to be defined by the specification of the term
>information, but that, on the other, there was almost no reference to the
>negative form misinformation and its derivatives: "lies, propaganda,
>misrepresentation, gossip, delusion, hallucination, illusion, mistake,
>concealment, distortion, embellishment, innuendo, deception."
>You can read the context of this citation here:
>http://www.capurro.de/tampere91.htm
>Alvin Schrader is Prof. of Information Science:
>http://www.ualberta.ca/~aschrade/
>and member of ICIE (Internat. Center for Inf. Ethics):
>http://icie.zkm.de/join
>
>well, the problem is, of course, time... At the moment (and almost
>permanently...)
>more work means just 'too much work' (almost too much already).
>Of course, such kind of work, if done seriously, is a big project, as you
>rightly point with regard to other sciences. I am sure my Danish colleague,
>Birger Hjoerland, with whom I wrote the ARIST article, would be interested
>in collaborating. Let us think about it, what we need (software etc.) and if
>FIS
>(who?) could not make possible such a "formal framework" (=software) in
>order to start, after a phase of pre-conception...
>What do you think?
>Rafael
>
> >
> > Rafael:
> >
> > I would encourage you to attempt your classification of terms related
> > to information. Your knowledge of several languages and
> > philosophical perspective could form a sound base for such an
> > undertaking.
> >
> > Would you consider adding the notion of "metaphor" to list of
> > homology, analogy and equivocal as the basis for classification?
> >
> > Or, does a more fruitful approach to bridging the disciplines exist?
> >
> > In another arena, I have played with a restricted approach to this
> > problem of classification and find it to be sufficiently challenging
> > to hold my interest.
> >
> > As an aside, one should note that only the science of chemistry has
> > developed a detailed and unequivocal classification schema. Over 20
> > million structures are (in the hands of experts) neatly organized
> > such that a direct correspondence between name and structure and
> > identity exists. The computer files containing these structures are
> > an indicator of the validity of this unique classification success.
> > Of course, this system was developed over the centuries. Most other
> > areas of science struggle in the area of classification. The
> > classification of mathematical definitions is particularly ambiguous
> > -- just check the definition of a mathematical term in several texts
> > and compare the concepts that are introduced. Is the the absence of
> > systematic mathematical definitions of terms is reflective of the
> > unique individuality of the mathematical mind? Biological
> > classification is relatively sloppy by comparison to the chemical
> > classification. Biologists struggle with identifying the boundary
> > between species. And, of course, with the human genetic sequence
> > becoming available for individuals, the chemical system of DNA
> > sequences will become the de facto basis for unambiguously
> > classifying human beings as material entities.
> >
> > Why was the issue of the nature of the chemical bond dropped from the
> > discussion? This issue is vital to biological communication in all
> > forms. Is this issue too technical or too restrictive for this this
> > group? The following question appears appropriate:
> > If 20 million structures can be classified, why have scientists
> > failed to classify the relations that identified in the classes?
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Jerry LR Chandler
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >John,
> > >
> > >I very much agree with the idea of
> > >developing a visual thesaurus about
> > >the information concept(s). This is exactly
> > >what I have suggested with regard to the
> > >so called "Capurro trilemma". The links
> > >between the different information concepts/terms
> > >(and related concepts/terms) could be
> > >differentiated according for instance to the
> > >criterium if these are identical (homonima),
> > >related (analogical) or totally different
> > >(equivocal) concepts/terms. One could
> > >take for this task the state-of-the-art
> > >"The Concept of Information" as a basis,
> > >that my Danish colleague Birger Hjoerland
> > >and I wrote for the Annual Review of
> > >Information Science and Technology (2003).
> > >The question is, of course, who would like
> > >to do this "job", with what kind of software etc.
> > >
> > >Rafael
> > >
> > >
> > > >It would be interesting to develop
> > >a working visual theaurus for the
> > >word 'information'including
> > >all those tangential concepts
> > >that have been floating around
> > >our FIS discussions.
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >
> > >John H
> > >
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Fri Jul 11 21:20:53 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 07 Mar 2005 - 10:24:46 CET