<HTML xmlns:o><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV><SPAN lang=EN-US style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Dear Moisés André, Ken, Pedro, and
FIS-colleagues,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN lang=EN-US style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><FONT size=3>I think the proper
position is not to extend the existing domains of science because the
information is a phenomenon which exists in all already established domains of
science.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN lang=EN-US style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><FONT size=3>To illustrate this
idea, let’s imagine the attempt to classify the sciences for real objects which
we can see in daylight form light point of view. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN lang=EN-US style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><FONT size=3>We will receive
many different results but not the proper one which is that we have two
absolutely different science domains : light and darkness.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN lang=EN-US style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><FONT size=3>This cause very
serious methodological problem: what is information and how it exists in the
nature.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN lang=EN-US style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><FONT size=3>Friendly
regards</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN lang=EN-US style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><FONT
size=3>Krassimir</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN lang=EN-US style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><FONT
size=3></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN lang=EN-US style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><FONT
size=3></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN lang=EN-US style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><FONT
size=3></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN lang=EN-US style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><FONT
size=3></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es
href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es">Pedro C. Marijuan</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 15, 2015 2:33 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=fis@listas.unizar.es
href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es">'fis'</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> [Fis] THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE:
INFORMATIONAL?</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US><BR></SPAN></P>
<DIV align=center><SPAN 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
lang=EN-US><B>Moisés André Nisenbaum & Ken Herold</B></SPAN><BR><SPAN
lang=EN-US></SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US><FONT size=4></FONT><BR></SPAN><B><I><SPAN
lang=EN-US>PART 1: </SPAN></I></B><SMALL><SPAN
lang=EN-US><BIG><B><I>Informational as the 4th Great Domain of
Science</I></B><BR></BIG></SPAN></SMALL><SPAN lang=EN-US>(Moisés André
Nisenbaum)<BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN 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 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
lang=EN-US>combined to form any discipline</SPAN></A></SPAN><SPAN
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
lang=EN-US>dynamic</SPAN></A></SPAN><SPAN 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
lang=EN-US>relationships</SPAN></A></SPAN><SPAN 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
lang=EN-US>Metascience Expression Language</SPAN></A></SPAN><SPAN 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 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
lang=EN-US>propose the insertion of the four Great Scientific
Domains</SPAN></A></SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-US> in High-Resolution </SPAN><SPAN
lang=PT-BR><A
href="http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/Map-Bollen.jpg"><SPAN
lang=EN-US>Map of Sciences (Bollen at all, 2009)</SPAN></A></SPAN><SPAN
lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN 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 lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN 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
lang=EN-US>BOWKER, Geoffrey C.; STAR, Susan Leigh. Sorting things out:
Classification and its consequences. MIT press, 2000.</SPAN></A></SPAN><SPAN
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
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 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 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
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
lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV><B><I><BR>PART 2: Comments from Ken Herold</I></B><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </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> </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> </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> </DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>I suppose I could best serve as the devil's advocate in
this round? </DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote> </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 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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><PRE class=moz-signature cols="72">-------------------------------------------------
</PRE>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>Fis mailing
list<BR>Fis@listas.unizar.es<BR>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>