Bernhard,
A really nice post.
I could not have put it much better myself :-). Though employing
"data" in this context, because of the term's various connotations,
can for many persons lead to problems of understanding, I believe.
A better single word seems nonetheless not to be available. Quite
a pity. Much of what you include under "data" -- and probably the
most important and *pertinent* component -- we can characterize
as statements ( whether explicit, elliptic, or otherwise ), or even
better as propositions ( or collections of propositions ) -- in the
technical/philosophical signification of that word. ( Cf. the _Oxf.
Eng. Dict._'s definitions no. 4.a : "Something which is asserted
or avowed; a sentence or form of words in which this is done; a
statement, an assertion" and 4.b (spec. in Logic) : "A statement
which is capable of truth or falsity; (also occas.) a mental
formulation of that which is expressed by such a statement" ;
"Either of the premises of a syllogism". See also definition no.
1.b (Math.) : "A formal statement of a truth to be demonstrated
(cf. THEOREM n. 1) or an operation to be performed". )
And as far as your final paragraph is concerned, I'm not sure what
you're really driving at. Furthermore, 'information' has indeed no
real plural in English and some other languages, but it *does* in
others ( German, French, Italian etc. ). There are comparable
problems with your claim regarding "data" and "news". But, such
claims are in no way necessary in order to support your general
view -- which is imho pretty much right on the mark, and well
formulated.
- Laval Hunsucker
Breukelen, Nederland
----- Original Message ----
From: Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_BIBLIO.TU-BS.DE>
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Fri, July 2, 2010 8:28:06 AM
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Knowledge vs. Information [was: Problems With Selection in Today's Information World]
B.G. Sloan wrote:
>
> I mostly agree with the points that Stephen McDonald makes, but
> couldn't one also make the case that most of the information in
> libraries is *recorded* knowledge?
>
Rather, records *resulting from* knowledge. The knowledge itself remains
in the head of the person doing the recording. Out of one body of
individual knowledge, myriads different records can emerge, every one
and even the sum of them always incomplete. Knowledge, essentially,
cannot be mapped 1:1 on paper or into files. And always, it is part of a
much larger context that does not get recorded with it but is
essential for the records to be meaningful. So, *recorded knowledge*
is shorthand, but with the potential to mislead.
Records are data, not information. We should get away from using
the two as synonyms. The same data that informs one person can be
meaningless for the next.
Information is what *happens*, it is a process, when a person reads the
data. That person has to be able to read, to decipher the script and to
understand the language and the wording of the text, and then some
grasp of the original context as well, no small prerequisites! As long
as this doesn't happen, there's only data with a *potential* to
inform.
Libraries have always helped people with the process of informing
themselves, they are not dispensing information, let alone knowledge,
but data. They can empower people in the process of doing useful
things with data, the process eventually resulting in some knowledge,
always in a new and different and individual context.
Besides, the view of information as a process is not only the original
(ancient) one, it is in keeping with the fact that "information" has no
plural whereas "data", as well as "news", has no singular.
B.Eversberg
Received on Fri Jul 02 2010 - 10:08:40 EDT