[Sigia-l] RE: Data vs. Information

[Thomas Vander Wal]

On 1/9/03 8:28 PM, "Boniface Lau" <boniface_lau at compuserve.com> wrote:

>> From: sigia-l-admin at asis.org [mailto:sigia-l-admin at asis.org]On
>> Behalf Of Jan Egil Hagen
>>  
>> * Boniface Lau <boniface_lau at compuserve.com>
>> | In "Information Anxiety 2", RSW wrote on page 19, "information is
>> | that which leads to understanding."
>> 
>> There are at least two ways to go about exploring definitions for
>> information.  One is to try to find the one correct definition, and
>> the other way is to find out how different people actually use the
>> word.  I don't believe that getting a community to agree on one
>> correct definition is _totally_ futile,
> 
> Do we know enough about the process of understanding to tell whether a
> definition of "information" is _correct_?

It seems you have gone at this backwards.  Knowledge and understanding are
largely interchangeable.  The RSW approach you are using is not widely used
as is the use of knowledge continuum, but that is minor as they use the same
process with nearly identical approaches.  Both knowledge and understanding
require a user to interpret the information.  You as if we know enough about
the process of understanding, well we had better if we are charging anybody
for our services.  The profession of IA works to help create usable
interfaces and information structures.  Our professional counterparts use
the data and information as terms with different meanings.

The approach you want to take is whether the users understand the
information you have put before them.  The process of understanding is at
the center of User-centered design and as a part of that community
Information architecture as well.  If a user does not understand the
information structures the information is unusable.  IA also takes an
approach of finding information the user is seeking to increase their
understanding.  Because information is not understood, does not mean it is
not information, it is still information, but not usable by that user.

> Agreeing on something is easy. But if what we agree on does not
> reflect the reality, it is like agreeing that the world is flat. Such
> "flat" world view will get IAs into troubles while clients are seeing
> a rounded world. IAs will get laughed out of the door, let alone
> helping clients to solve problems.

Our clients have problems and have hired us because they did not understand
or they have realized they did not understand enough (one of many reasons a
client hires a professional/expert).  Clients most often understand there
are professional terms of use and professionals usually help share their
knowledge.  Taking the view of professionals and scientists that have proven
the world is not flat is not a problem (which is the proper way to look at
this discussion as it is the uneducated in Information Science that think
data and information are the same).

> Thus, ISTM, the issue is not about getting a group of people to agree
> on a definition. The issue is about acknowledging the messy reality
> regardless of how much our mind would like to deal with a clean cut
> concept.

Information professionals largely agree on the terms and the relationship
between data and information.

> The reality is that people/clients use the terms "data" and
> "information" interchangeably. The more discriminated ones see the
> differences between data and information like shades of grey.

Non-professionals have many terms they use interchangeably.  The
non-initiated should be able to understand there is a difference between the
terms with very little education.  There is a vast difference between data
and information, but there is not distinct line.

> Terms reflect what we know about a subject matter. They are the fruits
> on a tree. Until a tree is mature enough to produce its own fruits,
> bringing fruits from other trees for attaching to the immature tree
> just doesn't work. Similarly, when a field has gathered a significant
> understanding of its subject matter, well-defined terms emerge like
> fruits ripe for picking. Until then, efforts to produce term
> definitions are not very productive.

Yes exactly!!!  Just like data is needed to make information and information
is needed to build knowledge/understanding.  These are well defined terms,
not by the regular people walking down the street, but by professionals and
academics.  Every profession has their terms of use which help them
communicate.  Information Sciences (this is the ASIS listserve yes? Focusing
on IA?) have differentiated data and information, for longer than I have
been studying in the area (early 80s).
 
>> but it is certainly a lot less hard work to explore how the word
>> information is used in the real world.
> 
> Actually, it is not as hard as it seems. Just look up an English
> dictionary. A dictionary reflects the real world usage of words.

Arg, I knew this would come up.  We are not defining data or information for
the real world we are defining IA as a part of Information Science.  Should
you ever get in a discussion with a programmer, information scientist, or
information researcher and state data and information are interchangeable
terms you will have lost your credibility.  Even RSW shows data and
information are separate items.

All the best,
Thomas

-- 
www.vanderwal.net

The future is mine, not Microsoft's