[Fis] Five Clouds over Fundamental Information Science.

[Xueshan Yan]

Dear Krassimir,

I believe you can make a significant contribution to fundamental information science, and I will fully support your efforts. Don't worry; you can use "Inforware" in any way you like.

Regarding your further research plan on Inforware, I would like to offer two suggestions:

1.      Broadly speaking, Inforware can represent information senders, receivers, storers, processors, and so on. In any information environment, it does not distinguish between active or passive, natural or artificial. Therefore, it encompasses both active and passive elements, as well as natural and artificial forms. I understand you plan to introduce another term "Infos." Based on your explanation, the logical positioning of Infos is unclear. The introduction of two similar terms may create more confusion than clarity, but scientific innovation is open to interpretation, so you may decide as you see fit.

2.      Regarding Frege’s triangle, I’m afraid that Inforware cannot replace knowledge in this context. My initial intention categorize Inforware into three levels: information, sign, and substrate. If you argue that "some kind of information" acts as a form of "knowledge," this aligns with the traditional usage of information concepts and does not contradict the original intention of Inforware. However, if you say that some form of Inforware is knowledge, it diverges from the intended meaning of Inforware.

I have reached my limit of three posts per week, so I will respond to you and everyone next week. I look forward to hearing your new thoughts on these issues; this kind of communication is truly meaningful.

Best wishes,

Xueshan

 

From: fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> On Behalf Of Krassimir Markov
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 10:42 AM
To: fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Five Clouds over Fundamental Information Science.

 

Dear Xueshan,


In this letter I would like to start with some comments on the concept of “Inforware”, and in the following letters I will comment on the five clouds.

I really like the concept of “Inforware” and would use it actively with your permission and citing the source.

I would like to add a little clarification.


Just as software is data that is processed by hardware, “Inforware” also requires corresponding “hardware”. You use the term “Inforware” to denote both the active and passive aspects, which is a bit confusing for the reader.

At the same time, your definition practically covers the meaning of the concept of “information model”, which corresponds to Frege’s triangle. The set of information models we usually call “knowledge”.

The concept of “Infoware” can be used instead of the concept of “Knowledge”. In this case, the active part of information processing needs the corresponding concept.

In order to have one comprehensive term for so many concepts referring to active entities such as subjects, agents, cells, animals or humans, societies, humanity or even an artificial active object created by humans, the abstract term of “Infos” was invented to unite all of the above, as well as any other object of the same type. 

The word “Infos” is an attempt to combine the natural and artificial worlds and at the same time emphasizes the unity between the different entities in the background of our understanding.

For the last 30 years, we have used the term “Infos” to refer to entities that process information models, not just data.

I would note that by connecting the concepts we obtain harmonious combinations:

HS = (hardware, software)

II = (Infos, Infoware).



Dear Pedro,

Thank you for your answer.

It seems to me that you greatly overestimate the number of definitions currently in force. 

Yes, that was many years ago, but I think that over time, no more than a dozen different understandings have formed. That is exactly what intrigued me to do something like an "inventory" and see what we have.

There is no problem with doing this in another way, other than through the FIS list.

 

Please, anyone who wants to present their original definition of the concept "information" or one that they adhere to, write to me at my personal email  <mailto:markov.krk at gmail.com> markov.krk at gmail.com.

 

This is my second post this week, so I will continue in the next one.


With respect,
Krassimir

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20241211/dbbaf255/attachment-0001.html>