while the collectors of live specimens— the branch most remote from document collecting— are not included at this time.
It's strange to me that the characteristic of living is what is used to distinguish what is covered and what is not. I can see why they need to scope things for their Encyclopedia, but should this be a general theory of information sciences? Don't living and non-living systems interpenetrate each other?
socially mediated
What's going on here in this little phrase?
I have not the space to make the case fully here, but I argue that a document, above all, contains "recorded information," that is, "communicatory or memorial information preserved in a durable medium"
So the intent to communicate is key for Bates. It might be useful to read (Bates 2006) to see what's going on here.
that distinction has been fading a bit, because increasing portions of museum collections are being digitized, placed on websites, and made viewable and searchable online
Interesting explanation for the existence of GLAM movement. Digitization of museum objects have increased the number of documents they must manage.
we research the universe of living too— but always in relation to the universe of documentation
Ok, so there is interaction there between both universes.
All the other humanities and sciences study the universe of living; the biologist and the bird-watcher alike both study the bird; we study the documentation associated with the bird.
This is a succinct and useful description.
That product of the doctor visit now exists in the universe of documentation.
But doesn't that universe of documentation get used by the universe of living. For example patient records are generated by the visit to the doctor, but they are used (in the Universe of Living) in subsequent visits, and it is in this use that the system of documentation is defined.
we engage in living and working our daily lives, and these vast numbers of human activities give off or throw off a remarkably extensive body of documentation of one sort or another
Information is a ubiquitous part of life as a human being.
This contrast is between the idiographic approach of the humanities— valuing the unique and individual character of phenomena, and the nomothetic approach of the sciences— seeking general laws and principles.
particulars and universals
As a rule, all information disciplines are in the process of becoming more generally applicable, as the discipline gains sophistication and breadth of understanding.
So information sciences start out in a host discipline but then differentiate themselves and start to map out to other disciplines?
The fundamental engine of development is need. Human beings want to retain informational resources, and, after a very short time, these resources collect at such a rate that some principles of selection, organization, etc., need to be brought to bear, in order for the resources to continue to be available for effective use.
Do other disciplines orient themselves around need as well. Is it possible to look at them that way?
add an "s"
There are many information sciences ; like the Physical Sciences, Social Sciences
an array of fields addressing distinct issues that nonetheless could all be seen from a common framework
This seems like a real challenge. What is a framework in this context?
We have been treated as the astrologers and phrenologists of modern science— assumed to be desperately trying to cobble together the look of scholarship in what are surely trivial and nearly content-free disciplines.
I wonder how this treatment manifested itself: budget, funding, etc?
Ironically, however, that legitimacy has often been gained without much clarity on just what the information disciplines are about. Power struggles are going on in universities and information schools regarding what the fields really are, and whose backgrounds are most needed to create coherent information disciplines. And those of us who were information before information was "cool" are often the last to be consulted.
There is a land grab going on about who can lay claim to the plunder of Silicon Valley.