Roberto Gejman (Computer Science Departament, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, CHILE)

An integrated set of definitions and distinctions in the information, communication and knowledge field is proposed.  It is argued that more attention must be given to records, usually confused with information.  Descriptions are shown to be the fundamental facts behind information. Information is defined as an abstract concept, free of material or syntactic constraints.  Information is observer free but it is dependent on the shared ontological background of communities. The world may be characterized as being structured by only six components.  Knowledge is the capacity to act effectively and it is not information. Information quantity and its relation with the entropy of physical systems are shown to be more ambiguous and less important than they are usually thought of.  It is argued that information studies should move on from these old concerns to confront the vital information challenges in this globalized information society with information superabundance.

  • Full article published in Triple C, 7(2), special issue What is really information?
  • Spanish article published in ¿Qué es información?, 2008

Manuel Campos (Departament de Lògica, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain)

The term “information” has an obvious ordinary use: from information we obtain in our interaction with the world, we are capable of acquiring knowledge about it. Assuming a realist point of view, information thus interpreted (measurable in propositional terms) is acquired by the subject through inductive fallible processes based, in part, on the recognition of natural correlations. This approach to the notion of information has, however, as a counterpart, that it seems to render the notion redundant.

  • Full article published in Triple C, 7(2), special issue What is really information?
  • Spanish article published in ¿Qué es información?, 2008

Margarita Vázquez (Facultad de Filosofía. Universidad de La Laguna, Spain)

In this paper, I analyse the paradox called “The surprise exam paradox” or “The unexpected hanging paradox”. I study some interpretations of this paradox, like Quine and Ned Hall ones, and give my own view about its solution, making some approaches from classical logic and from temporal or epistemic logic.

  • Full article published in Triple C, 7(2), special issue What is really information?
  • Spanish article published in ¿Qué es información?, 2008

Margarita VÁZQUEZ (Universidad La Laguna)

In this paper, I analyze the paradox called “The surprise exam paradox” or “The unexpected hanging paradox”. I study some interpretations of this paradox, like Quine and Ned Hall ones, and give my own view about its solution, making some approaches from classical logic and from temporal or epistemic logics.

Article

Mario PÉREZ-MONTORO (Universidad Barcelona)

One of the most visible phenomena taking place within the field of economics in the past decades concerns the growing importance and value that information has acquired within the context of organizations. This value is based conceptually on the critical distinction between the following concepts: data, information, knowledge and document. However, this distinction exhibits a deep conceptual confusion that has hindered its adequate use (conceptual and pragmatic) in organizational contexts. This paper’s goal is to show some clarification relative to this distinction. On the one hand, this article characterizes the standard model and evaluates its limitations. On the other hand, this work presents an alternative analysis of the concepts of data, information and knowledge. Finally, it offers a description of the role of the concept of document in this conceptual context.

Article

Roberto GEJMAN (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile)

This paper proposes a set of distinctions that may be helpful for the classification and taxonomy of the various theories, approaches, ideas and definitions of the concept of information. It hopes to offer a place as neutral as possible to locate, compare, classify and discuss the quite large amount of those developments. The main benefit is to be able to clean up the discussion from dialogues that expend a lot of time and energy in getting at a name consensus, naming ideas or classes of entities, instead of discussing the deep nature of those ideas or entities.
The paper suggest that most known approaches may be expressed in terms of the underlying distinctions and concludes that after giving consensus names to those dis-tinctions, a unified information and knowledge theory may be build.

Article