Information as ontologization

Abstract

The traditional view of data, information, and knowledge as a hierarchy fosters an understanding of information as an independent entity with objective meaning-that while information is tied to data and knowledge, its existence is not dependent upon them. While traditional conceptions assume a static nature of information, expressed by the equation information = data + meaning, we have argued that this understanding is based on an ontologization of an entwined process of sense making and meaning making. This process starts from the recognition of a pattern that is interpreted in a way that influences our behavior. At the same time, the process character of meaning making makes us aware of the fact that this ontologized hierarchy is in fact an interwoven process. We conclude that the phenomenological analysis of this ontologization that makes into being data, information, and knowledge has to go back to this process to reveal the essential underlying dependencies.The traditional view of the relations between data, information, and knowledge is often described as a data-informationknowledge hierarchy (Rowley, 2007). It sees information roughly as data plus meaning and knowledge as information plus context. This idea of hierarchy recently reappeared in Floridi's (2009) information concept, where information is defined as comprising sets of well-formed (i.e., syntactically precise) and meaningful data that has a truth function. Meanwhile, others (Machlup, 1984a;Tuomi, 1999) have raised the question whether this hierarchy really makes sense, because the understanding of data is a process that depends on knowledge-in fact, data, information, and knowledge can be "said to be a specific type of each of the others, or an input for producing each of the others, or an output of processing each of the others" (Machlup, 1984b, p. 647). We want to address this question by examining the processes

Defining Problems Fast and Slow: The U‐shaped Effect of Problem Definition Time on Project Duration

“…For the purpose of this study, we consider the term information broadly as referring to the collection and interpretation of data. Some information science studies have used the two terms-data and information-interchangeably as they are necessarily intertwined (Frick e 2009, Machlup 1983, Saab and Riss 2011 In the early stage of a project when a focal problem is defined, information processing includes collecting and interpreting data. As Daft and Lengel (1986) argued, information processing in organizations involves not only collecting data to remedy a lack of data (uncertainty) but also interpreting data to mitigate a lack of clarity (equivocality).…”

“… 1 For the purpose of this study, we consider the term information broadly as referring to the collection and interpretation of data. Some information science studies have used the two terms—data and information—interchangeably as they are necessarily intertwined (Frické 2009, Machlup 1983, Saab and Riss 2011). …”

Meanings of information: The assumptions and research consequences of three foundational LIS theories

“…The discussion of the term “information” is not new in library and information science. To name a few works published in the 2000s: Capurro and Hjørland () present a comprehensive review of the concept of information, including its uses in the natural sciences, humanities, social sciences, and information science; Day ) performs a critical analysis of the information discourse in European documentation, cybernetics, and the age of the “virtual”; Frohmann () attempts to deflate information; Braman () conceptualizes information as a constitutional force of society for the discussion of information policy; Floridi () discusses the diffusion of information in every aspect of human lives; Saab and Riss () recognize information as a sense‐making and meaning making process; Marchionini () ponders information in the cyberspace; Glecik (2011) traces information from drumming to quantum computing; and, of course, there has been the debate between Bates (, , ) and Hjørland (, ) on the nature of information.…”

A Framework for the Evaluation of the Cultural Heritage Information Ontology

“…As one of the objectives is to provide a uniform base for the common concepts and their detailed standardized and validated description, ontologies also encompass the machinereadability side, combining semantic meaning with fully digital prepared information [28]. Another advantage of developing dedicated ontologies is the connection of concepts, establishing links and relationships, to specific processes.…”