Bernie Sloan wrote:
> Maybe it's my five years of heavy-duty Latin studies in the seminary, but isn't "datum" the singular form of "data"? :-)
Yes, although it is rarely used in our context.
Remarks by Laval H. and Kevil, L.H. are also right, concerning existing
plurals of "information".
My note on this was rather on the side, it doesn't really, as Laval
added, contribute to the argument as such (information as process).
I'd go further and add that etymology is no reliable guide to
the contemporary meaning of words. In the course of history, meanings
and usage change a lot, and sometimes quite drastically.
In the case of "information", the etymology was in fact quite helpful
for what I wrote. Yet, its current usage as a synonym for "data" is
now so deeply rooted in present day thinking that no amount of
arguing will weed it out. That's a pity because we as a supposed
information profession should have a good definition of the term,
not use it as sloppily as we do. (But maybe St. Augustine's attitude
toward "time" applies: "If not asked, I know what it is...")
Eric Morgan's approach to information as a "four-rung ladder":
"data and facts, when collected and organized, become information"
depends heavily on the persons involved and the context. To say
they "become information" is thus not universally true.
The view of information as process (not substance) would necessitate
a different formulation:
Collecting and organizing data can facilitate the process of informing
that is necessary for the individual to build knowledge.
("facts" is not necessary here because what we regard as facts
will, in our context, always be data on paper or other media,
not something of a different character beside data.)
That sounds a lot as if "informing", "teaching", and "learning"
are all closely related - or are they not?
Therefore:
Libraries are facilitators in the economy of scholarly and
scientific work, and they need catalogs to fill that role.
B.Eversberg
Received on Mon Jul 05 2010 - 09:02:15 EDT