#information: A definition of information

 A definition of information

The importance of recognising
context
Wilson [3] stresses the importance of context
in dictating information needs, but makes no
mention of the impact of context on the interpretation
and effectiveness of information
materials. Hjørland considers ‘subject analysis
of documents as one of the most fundamental
activities of library and information
professionals’ [2, p. 610].
One implication of the model presented
here is that such an analysis requires an
appreciation of the context. As Hjørland
notes:
The subject of a book (or any other
document, or message) is closely
related to what kind of answers people
can find from reading the book...
Any document thus has an infinite
number of subjects [2, p. 610].
So to predict the effect of information on
a particular user, it is necessary first to envisage
the potential user. In classifying information,
therefore, the information scientist is
implicitly classifying the user.
Information and knowledge
Earlier, the importance of context in causing
a stimulus to become informative was discussed,
but arguably the most fundamental
context was omitted: that of the knowledge
of the recipient of the information. The examples
of contexts listed above will all shape that
knowledge, hence their significance, but in
addition the knowledge will be affected by
an incalculable array of experiences and
aptitudes. A definition of information
The importance of recognising
context
Wilson [3] stresses the importance of context
in dictating information needs, but makes no
mention of the impact of context on the interpretation
and effectiveness of information
materials. Hjørland considers ‘subject analysis
of documents as one of the most fundamental
activities of library and information
professionals’ [2, p. 610].
One implication of the model presented
here is that such an analysis requires an
appreciation of the context. As Hjørland
notes:
The subject of a book (or any other
document, or message) is closely
related to what kind of answers people
can find from reading the book...
Any document thus has an infinite
number of subjects [2, p. 610].
So to predict the effect of information on
a particular user, it is necessary first to envisage
the potential user. In classifying information,
therefore, the information scientist is
implicitly classifying the user.
Information and knowledge
Earlier, the importance of context in causing
a stimulus to become informative was discussed,
but arguably the most fundamental
context was omitted: that of the knowledge
of the recipient of the information. The examples
of contexts listed above will all shape that
knowledge, hence their significance, but in
addition the knowledge will be affected by
an incalculable array of experiences and
aptitudes.
The association between knowledge and
information seeking is well established: ‘...the
idea of using cognitive models as the basis for
information retrieval system design has
aroused considerable interest...’ [15, p. 63].
It has been argued that what motivates
someone to seek information is a recognition
by the seeker of ‘an anomaly in his/her state
of knowledge’ [4, p. 81]. Moser [16, p. 350],
questions how ‘normal’ and ‘anomalous’
states of knowledge are to be identified or
measured, and makes the point that ‘information,
to be generated, need not actively be
instigated on the ‘recipient’s’ side’.
This observation is highly relevant to the
context-reliant model of information reception
described in this paper. Checkland
argues that ‘consciousness makes man, via
his W(orld View)s, a meaning-endowing animal’
[17, p. 219]. If this is accepted, then it is
the meaning endowed within the World View
that will determine whether information is
sought, what information is sought, and
how it is interpreted. Anomalies may be a
motivating factor. People who, unlike Lewis
Carroll’s ‘Humpty Dumpty’, are not happy to
‘believe six impossible things before breakfast’
may seek information in an effort to
resolve some of the discrepancies in their
World View.
Alternatively, however, the meaning conferred
by a World View may provide someone
with a paradigm of ‘normality’, which can
be used in the generation of hypotheses.
Here, information may be sought to test the
hypotheses in order to establish or to extend
‘normality’.
Personal paradigms as context
The word ‘paradigm’ above is used in its dictionary
sense: ‘pattern, example, to exhibit
beside, show side by side’ (OED) rather than
in the ways in which Kuhn [18] used the term
in his philosophy of science. While Kuhn used
‘paradigm’ to describe systems by which
meaning could be shared in a research community,
the word is used above to describe
the ways in which an individual organises
information within his or her World View.
The difference is significant when considering
the evaluation of information.
Information scientists can only assess information
insofar as their World Views match
those of the people for whom they are evaluating
it. It is because the match is inexact
that browsing and serendipity are important factors in information seeking. Data and texts
that appear irrelevant to an evaluator may
provide the missing piece of a puzzle to a
researcher; but the data and texts will only be
informative if the puzzle is known.
Probably the best known example in science
of a serendipitous discovery arose
because of the problem of King Hieron’s
crown. The king, wishing to know whether
the crown was pure gold as claimed by the
goldsmith, or whether a gold/silver alloy had
been used, asked Archimedes to investigate.
Archimedes is reputed to have arrived at the
solution when, as he climbed into his bathtub,
he observed water overflowing from it.
Within the context of his knowledge, his
thoughts, and his ideas, the stimulus of overflowing
water was informative. Archimedes
deduced that the quantity of water displaced
was equivalent to the volume of his body, and
so had a means of determining the density of
the crown [19].
The history of science is full of such tales:
from the apple that gave rise to Newton’s
thoughts on gravity, to the dream of snakes
from which Kekule derived the structure of
benzene. Such examples, however, are of little
practical relevance to the information scientist,
since information of this kind is
impossible to organise. A more constructive
and more recent example involves the work
of Heisenberg in quantum mechanics.
According to C.P. Snow, in the early 1920s,
Heisenberg was seeking to find mathematical
tools which would enable him to relate the
set of rules associated with any given atom to
that atom’s set of properties.
The trouble was, he didn’t know
enough of the curiosities of nineteenth-
century mathematics, when all
kinds of mathematical arts had been
developed. Not for use, but for the
sheer beauty of the game.
Fortunately... Max Born ... [knew of
the] old subject of matrix algebra, half
forgotten but completely available [20,
p. 67].
This half-forgotten branch of mathematics
proved to be ‘precisely what they
needed’. If Snow’s analysis is correct, however,
and matrix algebra had indeed been
developed for ‘the beauty of the game’ rather
than for use, it would presumably have been
held to have little informative value. Despite
this, the text was ‘completely available’ and
clearly retrievable; and within the context of
Heisenberg’s research it became invaluable
information.

Read More»

#information: A definition of information 2

A definition of information

The readership context

two examples above because there is often
an intention that they should carry information.
There is no reason to assume that
a male butterfly means to inform either a
predator or a potential mate when he flaps
his wings. By contrast, a message designed
to communicate has two informing
contexts: that of the author and that of
the reader. These correspond to the two
points described by Shannon and Weaver
[9, p. 31] when they stated that ‘The fundamental
problem of communication is
that of reproducing at one point either exactly
or approximately a message selected
at another point.’ However, Shannon and
Weaver were merely talking about the difficulties
involved in transmitting a signal
from a sender to a receiver. If that signal is to
be a message, it is necessary for the sender
to be an author, or the recipient to be a reader,
or both. Characteristics of these two contexts,
and the message itself, are described
below.
The readership context
As Meadow and Yuan noted, ‘Most views of
the difference between data and information
… depend on the recipient.’ [10, p. 701] The
information derived from a message by a
reader depends on a wide range of factors,
all of which affect the reader’s understanding
of that message. Some of these are listed
below:
Geographical – nation, culture, language,
physical community.
Social – interests, pastimes.
Educational – level of education, subjects
studied.
Professional – area of professionalism,
career history.
The different contexts overlap. A mathematical
treatise will be understood in the
same way by both Russian and American
mathematicians. A Birmingham newspaper
will be more informative to Jamaican and
Punjabi immigrants living in Solihull than it
would to a tenth generation cockney in
Lambeth. To understand what makes sense
to a reader, therefore, it is necessary to understand
the structure of the society of which he
or she is a part [11].
The authorial context
As well as sharing the characteristics of the
readership context, the authorial context has
an additional property: that of intention. Two
possible states of intention are assumed:
Message intended to convey information
The author produces the text with the intention
of informing the reader. This is the usual
authorial context, in which a text ‘is a collection
of signs purposefully structured by a
sender with the intention of changing the
image-structure of a recipient’ [12, p. 20]. The
closer an author’s context is to that of a reader,
the greater is the chance that the author’s
work will be informative. In exceptional circumstances,
an author may choose to convey
more than one message in a given text
(see Appendix).
Message not intended to convey information
The author ascribes no meaning to the message
of the text: any meaning is derived within
the readership context. Examples include
the predictions of fortune-tellers and output
from artificial intelligence programs such as
Eliza [13].
Information as a resource or
commodity: getting the message
Messages are classified according to how focused they are. Traditionally, information scientists have dealt largely with focused messages. Highly focused messages are ones in which the context for interpretation is very specific, making ambiguities difficult or impossible. The most obvious example would be a mathematical document, but other examples include command line computer interfaces and technical publications.
Looser (but still focused) messages would include descriptive works and histories, which will be interpreted according to the reader’s culture and experience.
A less positive example would be poorly written ocuments [4], which may be confusing, ambiguous, or misleading: a typical contemporary example of this is email. Totally loose messages would have no obvious interpretation in any context. An example is surrealist literature. In many ways this model is similar to the communication model proposed by Jakobson

[14]. This too comprises three components (addresser, addressee, and message).
Because it deals with the intentional ransfer of information, however, it places greater emphasis on the means by which messages are transmitted, and excludes a great deal of information sources.

Read More»

#information: A definition of information

A definition of information

A.D. Madden
JFS, Learning Resources Centre, 175 Camden Road, London NW1 9HD
admadden@hotmail.com
One difficulty faced by students on many information management courses is the lack
of any attempt to teach concepts of information. Therefore, if a core module does not
fit in with a student’s existing concept of information, it can make it hard for the student
to recognise the relevance of that module. This paper addresses that problem by
summarising concepts of information, and by presenting a simple model that attempts
to unite the various concepts listed. The model is based on the idea that the meaning
in a message depends on the context in which the message originated (the authorial
context), and the context in which it is interpreted (the readership context).
Characteristics of authors, readers and messages are discussed. The impact of the
‘knowledge’ of ‘information’ users, and of their community, is considered. Implications
of the model are discussed. A definition of information is suggested, which attempts to
encapsulate the nature of information implied by the model.
rather to discuss concepts: the difference
being, according to Belkin [4, p. 58], a definition
‘says what the phenomenon defined is,
whereas a concept is a way of looking at or
interpreting the phenomenon’.
In their recent paper, McCreadie and
Rice [5] review concepts of information
proposed over the last fifty years. A summary
of the concepts they consider is given
below.
Information as a representation of
knowledge
Information is stored knowledge.
Traditionally the storage medium has been books, but increasingly electronic media are becoming important.
lnformation as data in the environment
Information can be obtained from a range of environmental stimuli and phenomena; not all of which are intended to ‘convey’ a message, but which can be informative when appropriately interpreted.
Information as part of the communication process
Meanings are in people rather than in words or data. Timing and social factors
play a significant role in the processing and
interpretation of information.
Information as a resource or commodity
Information is transmitted in a message from sender to receiver. The receiver
interprets the message as intended by the sender. There may be added value as the information is disseminated or exchanged.
Information in context
The model presented below rests on the assumption that information cannot be evaluated without an awareness of the context in which it is being interpreted. This assumption leads to a model comprising three components.
1. Readership context
The context in which a message is received and interpreted. The reader is any system
which derives (or attempts to derive) information from a message. A system may be a mechanism, an organism, a community, or an organisation.
2. Authorial context
The context in which the message originates.
The author is any system that transmits (intentionally or otherwise) a message from which a reader can derive information.
3. Message
The means by which information is transmitted.
It may be written, spoken, facial expression, phenomenal, etc.
These components are described more fully below.
Information as data in the environment: reading the signs
Many information scientists accept that information is a property of all living organisms
[6, 7].
It is not unreasonable, therefore, to illustrate the prime importance of context with an example from biology. It has long been recognised by zoologists that there is an association between brightly coloured markings on an animal and unpalatability or toxicity
[8].
Predators learn to associate such markings with unpleasant experiences and so are less inclined to attack similarly marked creatures in future. So a potential predator, seeing the markings of a brightly coloured male butterfly, will derive information about the insect’s suitability as a food source.
A female butterfly of the same species will derive no such information. She might, however,
find the markings useful in assessing the male’s quality as a mate. Clearly, therefore, both the predator and the female butterfly
derive information from the markings, but the message of the markings depends on the context in which it is read.
The importance of context in the interpretation of information has long been recognized.
The above example, however, indicates that, unless it is assumed that butterflies and birds have knowledge, knowledge is not necessary for a signal to be informative.
Information as part of the
communication process: the authorial and readership contexts Messages exchanged between humans frequently differ from those discussed in the

Read More»