<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US"><br>
</span></p>
<div align="center"><span style="" lang="EN-US"><big><b>A Dialog on the
Informational
as the 4th Great Domain of Science</b></big><o:p></o:p></span><br>
<span style="" lang="EN-US"><b>Moisés
André Nisenbaum & Ken Herold</b></span><br>
<span style="" lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US"><br>
</span><b><i><span style="" lang="EN-US">PART 1: </span></i></b><small><span
style="" lang="EN-US"><big><b><i>Informational
as the 4th Great Domain of Science</i></b><br>
</big></span></small><span style="" lang="EN-US">(Moisés
André Nisenbaum)<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">To classify
is human (BOWKER & STAR 2000). The organization of scientific
knowledge is
concern of scientists long ago. It started as a matter of librarianship
and has
evolved over time using various tools like enumerative classification,
faceted
classification, universal classification, controlled vocabulary,
thesaurus,
ontologies, Semantic Web. But how Information Science should organize
scientific knowledge taking into account the dynamic behavior of
disciplines
and multi, inter and trans-disciplinary science of the twenty-first
century
(Information Society)?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Rosenbloom
(2012) proposed a model in which four great Scientific Domains -
Physical (P)
Life (L), social (S) and Computing (C) - can be </span><span
lang="PT-BR"><a
href="http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/rosembloom-figure-2.1-domains-composing-disciplines.jpg"><span
style="" lang="EN-US">combined to form any discipline</span></a></span><span
style="" lang="EN-US">. The first three (P, L and S) are
"well known" domains and he proposes that the 4th is Computing. The
small number of domains (compared with 10 of DDC and UDC) is offset by </span><span
lang="PT-BR"><a
href="http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/Rosenbloom-figure-2.9-relationships.jpg"><span
style="" lang="EN-US">dynamic</span></a></span><span style=""
lang="PT-BR"> </span><span lang="PT-BR"><a
href="http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/Rosenbloom-figure-2.2-domains-simple-relations.jpg"><span
style="" lang="EN-US">relationships</span></a></span><span style=""
lang="EN-US"> between domains that can be written
by </span><span lang="PT-BR"><a
href="http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/Rosenbloom-table-2.1-ME-Language.jpg"><span
style="" lang="EN-US">Metascience Expression Language</span></a></span><span
style="" lang="EN-US">. Although the prerequisites of a
Great Scientific Domain has been well developed, Rosenbloom does not
explain
why they are in number of four or why these specific four domains.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">NAVARRO,
MORAL and Marijuan (2013) propose that the 4th Great Scientific Domain
is the
Informational (I) instead of Computing. However, the biggest proposal
is that
the Information Science needs to be rethought to support theoretically
and
methodologically this 4th Great Scientific Domain. At the end of the
article,
the authors </span><span lang="PT-BR"><a
href="http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/Map-Pedro.jpg"><span
style="" lang="EN-US">propose the insertion of the four
Great Scientific Domains</span></a></span><span style="" lang="EN-US">
in High-Resolution </span><span lang="PT-BR"><a
href="http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/Map-Bollen.jpg"><span
style="" lang="EN-US">Map of Sciences (Bollen at all,
2009)</span></a></span><span style="" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">The problem
is that all this is still in its "philosophical field" and miss a
more pragmatic approach. When I observed this map, I just thought about
how to
measure these four domains and, even without even knowing exactly how
to do
this, I asked Bollen the raw data of his research. My initial idea was
to
identify every scientific discipline by a mathematical entity, for
example a digital
4x4 matrix representing quantitatively the four Great Scientific Domain
components and their relationships. The problem how to establish the
criteria (bibliometric)
that would define the matrix elements. Once created, we can check if
the matrices really come together as expected.<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<br>
Moisés<br>
<span style="" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US"><i>References:</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="PT-BR"><a
href="https://books.google.com.br/books?id=xHlP8WqzizYC&lpg=PR9&ots=Mz3xtCt2nE&dq=Sorting%20things%20out%3A%20Classification%20and%20its%20consequences.%20&lr&hl=pt-BR&pg=PR9#v=onepage&q=Sorting%20things%20out:%20Classification%20and%20its%20consequences.&f=false"><span
style="" lang="EN-US">BOWKER, Geoffrey C.; STAR, Susan
Leigh. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT
press,
2000.</span></a></span><span style="" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="PT-BR"><a
href="https://books.google.com.br/books?id=WGfxkn8OkwAC&lpg=PP1&dq=On%20computing%3A%20the%20fourth%20great%20scientific%20domain.%20google%20books&hl=pt-BR&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=On%20computing:%20the%20fourth%20great%20scientific%20domain.%20google%20books&f=false"><span
style="" lang="EN-US">ROSENBLOOM, Paul S. On computing:
the fourth great scientific domain. </span>MIT Press, 2012.</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="PT-BR"><a
href="http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/articles/pedro-article.pdf">NAVARRO,
Jorge; MORAL, Raquel del; MARIJUÁN, Pedro C.. <span style=""
lang="EN-US">The uprising of informational: towards a new
way of thinking Information Science. Presented at 1st International
Conference
in China on the Philosophy of Information, Xi’an, China, 18 October
2013.</span></a></span><span style="" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="PT-BR"><a
href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004803"><span
style="" lang="EN-US">BOLLEN, Johan et al. Clickstream
data yields high-resolution maps of science. PLoS One, v. 4, n. 3, p.
e4803,
2009.</span></a></span><span style="" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div><b><i><br>
PART 2: Comments from Ken Herold</i></b><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I
appear to be a fringe observer of the history of information science
from within my professional (since 1984) domain of librarianship and
information studies. [1] For a broader example, Chaim Zins conducted a
multi-year study of information science internationally from 2003-2005.
[2] My own edited works [3] in 2004 and 2015 reprise various works
going back to Machlup from 1962 [4].</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am
somewhat skeptical of the suggestion that recombining knowledge is new
or previously critically not examined. The international documentation
movement, predecessor to information science, has been shown by
Buckland and Rayward [5] among others to be exactly the rich response
to the global growth of knowledge 100 years ago. Bioinformatics should
and does clarify and extend our perspectives, but I hesitate to accept
its equivalence with von Neumann architecture or cultural heritage.
Nevertheless, all the right questions are being asked in my opinion.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rosenbloom's
interminable references to Wikipedia are off-putting, I am afraid.
Also, he takes a rather narrow historical view of information science
in chapter 1. Again, the trend seems correct to me as to the
importance of computing. I just do not place as much value on an ad
hoc relational approach with few links to the massive peer-reviewed
literature available. <br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">I suppose I could best serve as the devil's
advocate in this round? </div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Sincerely,</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Ken</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><i><br>
</i></div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><i><span style="" lang="EN-US">References:</span></i></div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
[1]<a href="https://www.asist.org/?s=history+of+information+science"
target="_blank">
https://www.asist.org/?s=history+of+information+science</a><br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><a href="http://www.uff.br/ppgci/editais/historyofis.pdf"
target="_blank">http://www.uff.br/ppgci/editais/historyofis.pdf</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[2]<a
href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.20505/abstract">
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.20505/abstract</a> <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[3]<a href="https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/1034">
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/1034</a> <br>
</div>
<div><a
href="http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/library_trends/toc/lib.63.3.html">http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/library_trends/toc/lib.63.3.html</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[4]<a href="https://archive.org/details/productiondistri00mach">
https://archive.org/details/productiondistri00mach</a><br>
</div>
<div><a href="http://philpapers.org/rec/MACTSO-9">http://philpapers.org/rec/MACTSO-9</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[5]<a
href="http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/%7Ebuckland/otlet.html">
http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/otlet.html</a><br>
</div>
<div><a
href="http://people.lis.illinois.edu/%7Ewrayward/otlet/otletpage.htm">http://people.lis.illinois.edu/~wrayward/otlet/otletpage.htm</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-------------------------------------------------
</pre>
</body>
</html>