1. At one point, Levitan writes about "placing information in its proper life cycle" (p. 6). Is placing items in their proper life cycle supposed to be used to determine their value or their place in the information production process? And does this apply to only preexisting information or information that is 'created', too?
2. In this article, like in earlier articles, we discussed the idea of information as a resource. Since, according to the article, a main characteristic and benefit of information as a resource is its reuse, is it possible that there will be a time when information will become more valuable than other depletable resources?
3. If the "information production is indeed a value-added process" (p. 5) as the author claims, is information only valuable at the end of the information production cycle? Is it possible for some information to be worth more than other information? I feel like what was proposed in the article is a factory-like method for churning out information, but is that reliable when there are so many other factors that go into information production? Maybe we aren't a post-industrialist society at all, but just one that has turned from manufacturing steel, to manufacturing information.
For the question #2, I think that it rises another issue: how to determine the value of a type of resource? Since the author considered the information as a resource with a great capacity of reuse itself, how would he pinpoint the contribution of information to our world, an so-called information world?
For the question #2, I think that it rises another issue: how to determine the value of a type of resource? Since the author considered the information as a resource with a great capacity of reuse itself, how would he pinpoint the contribution of information to our world, an so-called information world?
1. The author says that “An information source is the fundamental unit in the life cycle of information production. It Is fundamental because it cannot be broken down without destroying the information. Information reflects the synergistic combination of medium and message.” What does the author mean by medium? The words spoken should be regarded different information source from the words written down on a piece of paper. But should the post on Twitter be different information source from the post on Facebook?
2. The author states that "If it (information source) is to be reused, even by its creator, the source must be verified, mechanisms of intellectual and physical access must be added, including storage facilities, and various legal, organizational, and economic conditions, if present, must be addressed.” But what about the knowledge stored in one person’s mind? A very wise man has a lot of knowledge of the world and life. His knowledge is constantly institutionalized by years of experience. But his knowledge is only intellectually and physically accessible to himself. Should his knowledge or he as a person be regarded information source or resource?
1 - I'm curious as to how we determine which materials are intended for "re-use" in viewing Levitan's definition of information resources as anything meant to be reused/referenced. Is re-use determined by the researcher/user, or the author? How does this relate to personal records, such as correspondence or private journals, that were never actually intended to be used or read by the public sphere?
2 - Something that's starting to bother me is the fact that our readings have yet to discuss the notion of privilege as it relates to the information economy. Levithan's analysis of supply-demand seems relevant/useful for a business setting, but what about public institutions such as archives/museums? Public collection scopes are essentially based on power structures - materials are deemed worthy of preservation based upon a socially constructed sense of value. How do we closely examine the biased (i.e. non-neutral) role of the archivist/collection development specialist/bibliographer when it comes to the "institutionalization" of information resources as described on page 47?
1. Levitan discusses the “life cycle of information production” in her article, mainly stressing that this cycle must be “continuous” and that an information resource is something that “can be tapped repeatedly” (47). However, must a resource be inexhaustible simply to be considered a resource? While it’s true that information resources are different than tangible ones, does the element of infinite continuity have to be present in order for something to be considered an information resource? If so, does that mean that something could be considered a resource at one time and then not at a later date?
2. In her article, Levitan claims that “an information resource must coordinate agents and activities which . . . repackage and distribute its products and services” (49). I feel that Levitan doesn’t go into enough detail about what this entails. While I agree that an information resource should make available its products and services, and that certainly it should maintain a constant ease of access, should it really be responsible for distribution? Isn’t it enough that access to information is granted when needed?
3. Levitan briefly discusses the concept of information resources’ connection to property rights. While she touches on the fact that people associate information with “ownership” (especially intellectual property rights), she also says that “an information resource is purposely established for continuous reuse . . . Furthermore, excluding individuals from use or consumption is not only difficult, but antithetical to its purpose” (51). It’s unclear here whether Levitan is talking about “free” resources (such as libraries or free databases) or all resources. If it’s all resources, is exclusion really a bad thing? Copyright is certainly a concern here – should everyone be able to access everything simply because it’s an information resource? Does exclusivity mean that an information resource loses its status as such?
3 - This question touches on a really important point. The monetization of information and ongoing copyright/intellectual property issues are a continuous struggle for digitization programs, archives, and any person interested in scholarly research. The Aaron Swartz case is a particularly tragic and relevant example here, where using one's privileges as a student in a university (access to information) become a source of persecution if someone opts to share said information. There are also challenges in negotiating an individualistic Western conception of knowledge, which is somehow both extremely possessive ("I own this idea") and freedom-based ("I have the right to this information by virtue of my existence") that causes friction between different values, for example indigenous forms of knowledge that are not designed to be shared with outsiders, or are designated for specific community members. I don't think exclusivity means that an item loses its status as an information resource, but you've definitely stumbled upon a pretty serious grey area in terms of ethics. I tend to fall on the side that the knowledge creator or community who owns the material should be allowed to decide how the material is to be used, but the potential for abuse in that situation is pretty high, so I don't really believe there's a single right answer. As always, it depends.
1. In this paper written in 1982, the author couldn't possibly foresee how "decentralization" changed the world 30 years later. The detailed model concerning life cycle of information production in the paper reflected that the author deemed that information source is mainly come from universities, industries or governments. I can fully understand why the authors thought in this way with the consideration of the cultural context in 1980's, the age that televisions and broadcasts still dominated the power of speech. However, even just taking a glance on current world, it's not hard to conclude that the power of speech has been transferred from a few entities to a large number of people. In this case, I'm wondering if the model in the paper applied to such a multi-polarized world?
2. The author clarified the difference between information resource and information system in page 49. However, I doubted the explanation of the author, especially the example that the author held. The author said that the computer is an information system only after being programmed. He also said computers are not information resource. I agreed with the former assertion while put the latter one in doubt. According to my daily experience, most of information that I obtain for now comes from Internet. Meanwhile, I'll post my opinions and ideas to the information I read on the computer screen. In this case, computers participated in both information creating and information creation and information reuse. If tools can be considered as a kind of resource, why information tools like computers are kicked out of the concept of information resource?
1. In this paper written in 1982, the author couldn't possibly foresee how "decentralization" changed the world 30 years later. The detailed model concerning life cycle of information production in the paper reflected that the author deemed that information source is mainly come from universities, industries or governments. I can fully understand why the authors thought in this way with the consideration of the cultural context in 1980's, the age that televisions and broadcasts still dominated the power of speech. However, even just taking a glance on current world, it's not hard to conclude that the power of speech has been transferred from a few entities to a large number of people. In this case, I'm wondering if the model in the paper applied to such a multi-polarized world?
2. The author clarified the difference between information resource and information system in page 49. However, I doubted the explanation of the author, especially the example that the author held. The author said that the computer is an information system only after being programmed. He also said computers are not information resource. I agreed with the former assertion while put the latter one in doubt. According to my daily experience, most of information that I obtain for now comes from Internet. Meanwhile, I'll post my opinions and ideas to the information I read on the computer screen. In this case, computers participated in both information creating and information creation and information reuse. If tools can be considered as a kind of resource, why information tools like computers are kicked out of the concept of information resource?
1. I think the model this paper proposed still have the applicability to today's world. The information nowadays, though more democratized, still has the same essence as the information that the paper discusses. The information on Twitter or Facebook would still go through the process of generation (posted by the users), institutionalization (data mined or aggregated by different social media tools), and so on.
1. "Information resources may be classified as passive or active. As passive entities their use largely depends on the initiative and efforts of users. An individual acting as a "contact point" for an agency represents a prime example of a passive information resource" p. 47. Levitan seems to be combining steps of the information lifecycle here, as distribution of the information can be passive or active. This example talks about distribution methods, but how are the resources themselves passive or active? Are the resources that people want to work with active (actively developed), or are they the resources that are enhanced before distribution? Whereas passive information is just transferred without enhancement or further development?
2. "A second category of the incomplete cycle covers only one phase, the generation and recording of the information source. There are relatively no attempts to institutionalize the source so that it can be reused or to distribute it. An historical archive is a typical example. When scholars and historians need to use such information, they spend much time locating, accessing, and finding what is useful to their need" p. 49. But aren't the scholars and historians providing enhancement to the source? They are locating and more than likely associating it with another information source – thus, connecting the two pieces. Are they not accessing its value and perhaps truthfulness? These are elements that are contributed back to the information resource.
3. "It becomes a resource when verified, edited, enhanced with a table of contents and index, and physically stored, and when the parties involved meet various legal, organizational, and financial requirements such as reflected in privacy acts, copyright laws, freedom of information acts, and formal and informal contractual arrangements." p. 47. "An information system generally refers to the interrelated processes of gathering, organizing, storing, retrieving, and disseminating information items" p. 49. I'm confused between an information resource and an information system. Both are sounding as though they are doing similar things. Does one use the system to turn an information source into an information resource?
1. I also felt like Levitan's discussion of active and passive information resources was a bit nonsensical. I feel like she the way she described the terms- the information resources themselves can't be labeled as either active or passive because she's really talking about the amount/the way people use those resources.
"Are the resources that people want to work with active (actively developed), or are they the resources that are enhanced before distribution? Whereas passive information is just transferred without enhancement or further development?" I thought that both of these questions were excellent. Levitan really does not specify. However, Levitan was writing in 1982- WAY before the age of social media- and she might have conceptualized the creators and the consumers of information as two distinct bodies making a one way exchange of information. So I'm guessing it was more about what the information creators were doing with/how they were spreading the information more so than how the consumers were using it...
1. This paper fairly presciently looks into matters of the public good that must be addressed in the exclusive use of information. It is a debate we are still having, with collection and control of digital goods driving both markets and regulation. The author asks the question, and I shall repeat it, to what degree does the exclusive control of information create disparities of power? (Levitan 51)
2. Levitan discusses Information Resources as something that should be viewed outside of traditional “Sender-Channel-Receiver” models, stating that we should look instead to “thermodynamics, oceanography, and ecology” (Levitan 53) for models of the behavior of information. Is this statement accurate to describe the internet, as an ecology in particular, a phenomenon which did not exist at the time of the paper’s publication?
3. Levitan addresses some of the economic impacts of information resources, particularly that “In general, economic theory has not been concerned with the notion and activities of reuse.” (44) This remains true to this day, as we struggle with limitations on numbers of downloads of digital goods, or DRM restrictions on content formats. How can modern firms handle products which have a marginal cost of zero to reproduce in a way that is equitable to the public good and private profit?
Your third question is one I've been wondering about for several of these articles, too. So far it seems as though entities like iTunes and the Kindle Store are depending on DRM and ease of use, but this clearly hasn't eliminated piracy. There's also the fact that content creators have to deal with massive corporations who have immense power over them if they want to make any money at all. (I learned while working in the publishing industry that your options are to sell your book on Amazon or lose about 60% of your potential sales -- which means that you have to play ball on Amazon's terms, potentially not being treated fairly, rather than completely lose a huge chunk of your profits.)
1) Like the Hodge article, this article raises questions about the ownership of information, and which people or entities have the right to make that information more accessible and reusable. How do information resources account for “the question of copyright… and the rights of private industry to… profit from information” (51)? We have found in recent years especially that there are grey areas between preserving information and promoting its accessibility, and outright copyright violation. It would be interesting to explore how information professionals are negotiating those grey areas.
2) We have previously discussed how limiting the distribution of information and forcing it to be treated against its nature as a rival commodity is one way that information has continued to be monetized. (See the JSTOR access controversy for an example.) Levitan also brings up the interesting point that exclusion and limitation of information access can be a question of power as well as money. What are some ways in which limiting access to information can reinforce the power of those who hold the information? Is controlling the flow of information necessarily always a bad thing?
3) Because “at no point in the production cycle is information cost free” (52), the capitalist economy demands that information continue to be monetized in order to ensure that the efforts of those who produce information sources and resources do not go uncompensated. Since this article’s publication in 1982, though, monetizing information has become increasingly difficult as the nonrival nature of information becomes harder and harder to artificially limit. How can producers of information resources ensure that they do not end up working for free?
1) On page 49 it says "There are relatively no attempts to institutionalize the source so that it can be reused or to distribute it. An historical archive is a typical example. When scholars and historians need to use such information, they will spend much time locating, accessing and finding what is useful to their needs." Why is it that archives have such a 'private' frame of mind when they were historically meant for the public and to be 'of the people'?
2) "An information resource is purposely established for continuous reuse. It is set up so that it will not be depleted when used. Furthermore, excluding individuals from use or consumption is not only difficult, but antithetical to its purpose. Moreover, the continuous addition of new users does not diminish the worth of the resource to any individual -- current or future -- user..." Is there any equation or does the evolution of a field have an effect on a resource's value? Is there any way to note when precisely a resource's value may shift or alter?
3) How does the importance of information being a reusable resource for the public clash with the privatization of databases, where one must pay for articles of information and control over these assets is tightly enforced? How can information's full potential as a resource be realized when its value is so heavily regulated and controlled by an overall small number of individuals?
1. The author said an information resource is a source of information that has been established so that it can be reused. I think the concepts of sources and resources are confusing in this article. The author said history archive is a typical example of information source while the library is an information resource. However, if scholars need to use information in the library, it also cost their time and effort, as archive did. What’s more, by giving an example of “documents collected to establish a library", the author demonstrated a life cycle pattern when several information sources combine into one resource. So that means the documents are information source. Nevertheless, most documents are institutionalized and could be reused to some extent. Are documents information sources or information resources?
2. Although the figure about information lifecycle seems reasonable I believe the reality is far more complicated than the figures showed us. For example, a man posted a twitter which describing the design of new Iphone, and then every friend of him knew it. In this case, the dissemination happened very early and even without any institutionalization or repackaging.
3. In the part of “Impact of Technology”, the author discussed economies of scale and scope. It is clear for me what economies of scale and economies of scope means, but I wonder if the technology could impact marketplaces in the same way as where many information resources established as “goods”. I want to figure out the connection between information life cycle and the “technology impacts”. The reason is that I think technology also impact every phrase in the information life cycle. Just as the author said, the information life cycle producing three types of “goods”, not only information resources but also information sources and information product/services.
I was certainly complexed by the authors statement that libraries are a resource and archives are a source as well as they both are places where people come to reuse information. What I think the author is trying to say is that a book in a library is created to be reused by people through publication and placed in a library. The materials in an archive are often the working papers of someone, with no intent to have them published or distributed to the public, so these items don't undergo the process to make it a resource. This is my understanding of the authors explanation of what makes a resource or source, but I feel in this case she makes it sound like the institution/place of the library or archive is being judged as a resource, not the contents within. Many archives certainly end up publishing volumes of primary materials, which I would argue could be a resource. Levitan also writes that archives are not resources because there has been no attempt to institutionalize the source. I am not following what she considers as institutionalization as well. I would think that she is forgetting about business archives that are established directly in the company to serve as a resource to reuse or distribute the materials in it about that company.
1. On page 52, Levitan writes that the information market is different than the traditional goods market because of the interdependence of producer and consumer. Is this true? Are their information resources that have independence between the producer and consumer?
2. On page 47, Levitan says that sources are verified by a creator to be reused as a resource, though she does not explain what it means to verify a source. Do all creators go through a verification of a source they created? Wouldn’t it be inherently true to the creator?
1. Can information really be destroyed if you destroy the medium in which it is presented? (page.3)
2. Is there really such a thing as information in the abstract, or is each instance of information unique? Information in the format of a magazine seems to have some different "affordances" and "constraints" compared to information on a website or in a book.
3. What are ways to find or come across unpublished papers such as the one by Hall?
1. Levitan's model of the information life cycle, though written in 1982, appears to be applicable to information created through social media today. Levitan writes about passive versus active entities. From her definitions, is social media passive, active or both? How so?
2. Levitan discusses the idea that "the use of information products and services leads to the creation of new information and the start of a new cycle." First off, why is Levitan throwing these new terms around? Are information products and services synonyms for information resources? Also- in contemporary social media news stories are posted over and over to various blogs or facebook pages with an individual's own commentary. Is each posting its own information resource in its own cycle?
1. "An information source...cannot be broken down without destroying the information." From what I understood, Information Sources are a sub-category of Information Resources. I don't understand what the author is saying in the quote here. Is the author saying that if a source is broken down the source stops being a source and therefore stops producing information or is she saying that information requires an information source to be information? 2. I appreciated that this author noted that "'Information' or 'knowledge' is often discussed in abstract or vague terms, whicb are not rigorous enough or clear enough to formulate researchable questions". This is one of my main concerns about information science so far. We've discussed this before but I'm glad that this was plainly stated in this article because I wholly agree with it. 3. I think this article says better what I was trying to say about information as a commodity. Information is fundamentally different than a goods resource mainly because of the life cycle that information as well as the notion that information is constantly evolving. This makes the comparison of information and commodities very difficult.
1. "An information source...cannot be broken down without destroying the information." From what I understood, Information Sources are a sub-category of Information Resources. I don't understand what the author is saying in the quote here. Is the author saying that if a source is broken down the source stops being a source and therefore stops producing information or is she saying that information requires an information source to be information? 2. I appreciated that this author noted that "'Information' or 'knowledge' is often discussed in abstract or vague terms, whicb are not rigorous enough or clear enough to formulate researchable questions". This is one of my main concerns about information science so far. We've discussed this before but I'm glad that this was plainly stated in this article because I wholly agree with it. 3. I think this article says better what I was trying to say about information as a commodity. Information is fundamentally different than a goods resource mainly because of the life cycle that information as well as the notion that information is constantly evolving. This makes the comparison of information and commodities very difficult.
1. The author talks about the concept of an information resource that is helpful in defining an ‘information and knowledge-based society’. Such a kind of society is dependent on information production for its economic health and welfare. How can information not be depleted when purchased? Doesn't the reuse capability have limits? Will such a situation cause poor economic health and welfare? 2. The ‘black box’ theory is visualized into various models, such as channel model and system model.The "system" is considered as a refinement of the "channel," not only stressing input, process, and output, but also feedback. So is the channel model more advantageous? It has all the levels of the system model and some additional components as well. What other new models can be considered that are not related to these and can evaluate information as well. 3. The establishment of new information resources leads to economies of scale and scope as the author points out. Economics of scale by definition is the cost advantages that applies to certain organization. To establish new resources, some processing and transmission technologies are involved. Do establishment of these technologies cause reduction in the economic health? And is the cost advantage the final result rather than an initial one after all the cost adjustments?
1. In the article, the author raised a concept of information resource- an information resource stands at the midpoint of the life cycle, integrating and coordinating the various actors and activities of these phases. During the process of information resource establishment, what is the difference (advantages and disadvantages) after digitalization emerges in the process? 2. The author mentioned there will be changes or updates of information, so if changes occur, which phase will need to be changed the most (source creation, resource establishment or information product/service production)? 3. The author classifies information resource into passive one and active one, and pointed out the main function of information resources is to coordinate and integrate agents and actions, but I think all the information resource are passive because they are all manipulated by people to coordinate and integrate, information resource cannot achieve these functionalities by themselves. So could you give me an example to illustrate that point?
1. At the end of P46, the author claims that an information source is fundamental because it cannot be broken down without destroying the information. But, does this reason make sense? I don't think that information could be destroyed, since it might exist in humans' minds for ever. Perhaps, what the author means here is the carriers of information, such as text, or pictures?
2. When explaining the information life cycle, the author says the "the use of information products and services inherently leads to the creation of new information and the start of a new cycle". My second question is how to deal with the information source and resource after completing the information products and services?
3. I agree with the author's opinion that the information market is structured not only according to traditional economic pracices but also according to technical, legal, political, and organizational conditions and actions. And, he also suggests that private companies keep track of government activities in market relationships. So, I am thinking that, besides the legal and political factors, can government influence information market in other aspects by using other methods?
1. I am curious how Levitan would deal with the malleability of “information sources” as they stand today? It seems to me that the framework that is presented would have trouble dealing with the fine line distinction between what constitutes an “information source” and “information resource. I agree with the author’s contention that the information life cycle is not linear but, I am also wondering how he might look at it in the present day?
2. I have to agree with Levitan that the field of archiving has yet to figure out an optimal approach for maximizing “reuse” into its working process. However, I am curious about how fields such as thermodynamics, oceanography, and ecology might help to redefine the assumptions of information resources? This part was confusing and I am wondering if anyone might provide an example?
3. I am curious if Levitan would feel that the internet fits into his working definition of how information is produced on a whole. He states that this process involves institutionalization, management and maintenance, and distribution phases but I wonder if the Internet undermines (at least visibly) these processes. I am curious then how one would do any sort of economic analysis of information resources if breaking them apart or disaggregating them is impossible?
1. The information transfer model described has five stage: origination, recording, preservation, end-use and transmission. When we use google searching engine, it will search the result real time or just display the result set already preserved?
2. Karen try to convince us that ‘This is clearly not the ease with information resources, which are established so as not to be depleted when purchased’. It is easy to understand that information is not depleted when purchased, but it is still possible that information will be useless when it is out of date.
3. It raises an interesting point that has relationship with the former assigned article. It emphasizes that the continuous addition of new users does not diminish the worth of the resource to any individual-current or future-user. Rather, it enhances the value of the resource. This similar idea has been mentioned in other readings.
1. To clarify, when Levitan refers to the concept of an information system, defining it as the “interrelated processes of gathering, organizing, storing, retrieving and disseminating information” (p. 49) is she implying that information systems are part of the information life cycle? The information life cycle, as I have known it, typically includes these steps, but I was having trouble determining if, in Levitan’s eyes, these are separate ideas or all part of the bigger picture.
2. Levitan makes the distinction between information resources, or products, I suppose, and other material commodities, but in her view, information products can still be bought and sold, yes? With that in mind, in the example she offers of RTECS (p. 48), she discusses at what point an information source becomes and information resource, and that is when it becomes institutionalized in three different contexts. At what point would these develop into information products? In scenario number 2 the information resource is offered to subscribers presumably paying a fee. Does this not mark it as a product rather than a resource?
3. Towards the end of the article, Levitan writes that the continuous addition of new users enhances the value of the resource (p. 51). How? In what context or situation is this true? I’m not arguing with the statement, but am interested in delving further into it.
1 On page 7, what does information market mean? Is that a market produce information goods or a market in the information age? Traditional market also needs to take consideration of economics, social contexts.
2 On page 8, the author talks about the exclusion of information. What about the same software for different group of users, such like students price for PS? And what about the free and paid email? Are they account for a kind of exclusion?
3 On page 8, institutional information can affect ownership externalities, which results inability to enforce ownership. Then how could we view the value of the information product?
Many articles and journals find themselves locked behind a pay wall that prevents many classes of users from accessing and utilizing the information available. Where do these kinds of information resources lie within the life cycle?
In the introduction, Levitan notes that a postindustrial society is “an information and knowledge-based society.” This idea coupled with the information life cycle leaves me to wonder how information existed in the preindustrial societies of the world. Can the same definitions be applied and if so does this change the idea of of the life cycle?
In my first question I mentioned the use of paywalls when dealing with information. In the section about Public Good Externalities, Levitan touches on this subject and flat out states, “An information resource is purposely established for continuous reuse.” How then are journals and articles that find themselves overlooked or even dismissed as they require money to be accessed true information resources?
1. On page 44 Levitan says that “information production requires continuous reuse of information, and therein lies the dependence of a society on its information resources.” I think also that information production is also a result of what information we choose to eliminate. By eliminating resources we no longer need or are useful or outdated, society can spend more time developing future ideas rather than on incorrect information or resources.
2. On page 47, Levitan talks about information resources being passive and active. She says that “an individual acting as a “contact point” for an agency represents a prime example of a passive information resource.” I don’t understand how if an individual is exerting an effort to use information resources how that would be a “passive” action. Wouldn’t information resources themselves be a passive resource until someone utilizes them, which would then turn them into an active resource? At what point does a resource become an active or passive thing?
3. In the section “Ownership Externalities” on p. 51, she says that in reference to information resources that “exclusion is possible, however, although costly, and leads directly to questions of information as power.” I’m curious how this pertains to the lifecycles of academic databases that one must access by a proxy or a paywall. How useful are these resources really of they are so hard to get to and why are they so inaccessible to the general public?
1. The author mentions 5 steps in the information transfer (figure 1): origination, recording, preservation, end-use, and transmission. I know this was created 50 years ago, and there must be some limitations. But I still wonder what the difference between recording and preservation is. I mean the computer was not used widely in 1950s and 1960s, so when information was recorded, the most common thing at that time was words were recorded on papers. And to some degree, it means words were preserved on papers.
2. The author says ‘an information source is the fundamental unit in the life cycle of information production. It is fundamental because it cannot be broken down without destroying the information.’ I believe information is formed with data. Why couldn’t data be the fundamental unit in the life cycle of information production? And is ‘destroying the information’ really a big deal?
3. The author states the life cycle of information production in simple version (figure 2) and detailed version (figure 3). Both of them show us the process of information production, but neither of them tells us form which the information source is formed. In the author’s opinion, the life cycle begins with source and ends with product/service (figure 4). So should there be something before the ‘source’?
1 - Levitan suggests early in the article that "information resources...are established so as not to be depleted when purchased" (p.3). Really? I'm a little hung up on the purchase piece of this idea. Aren't most information resources free--and if not, shouldn't they be?? 2 - I'm intrigued by the information transfer and production model (p. 45-6), and I wonder if and how the theory behind the ones presented in the article hold true/change in different cultural contexts or frameworks. Or, are these ideas fairly universal? 3 - I appreciate the "Needed Research" section of the article, and in particular, its layout and clarity. Seeing that the article is 20+ years old, I wonder to what extent these topics have been evaluated (and have possibly changed) since the time of the article's publication. Also, I'm curious if Levitan had any ideas as to what academic disciplines this needed research would best come out of--information, either in (or not in) its most interdisciplinary form, or somewhere else?
1. In this article the author describes information resources as either active or passive. An active information resource is one that engages in dissemination of its information of its own volition. A passive information resource is one that relies on the user to come to it to access the information. Do information resources have to be either active or passive? Is it possible for an information resource to be both active and passive? 2. The information life cycle in this article has three main parts. These parts are the information source that leads to the information resource that leads to the information product or service. The author insists that information flows from one to the other. However these day large amounts of unfiltered data, like personal data, is being sold from one company to another. IS this a case of the information source skipping the information resource phase and going straight to the information product or is this data somehow an information resource? 3. In this article the author discusses the concept of ownership externalities and how they relate to information. Ownership externalities are the effects, both positive and negative, of the inability to clearly delineate ownership. How does this concept relate to the modern internet where we have services like iTunes and other pay services that make us pay money to use information that we do not truly own?
1. This article reminded me of the economic value and impact of libraries on communities. The article stated that information resources don’t have an economic model to follow, but information resources are so varied, public and private, that I don’t believe there could be a system that properly addresses both. Public, private, and for profit institutions would seemingly have different motivations and use for information so I wonder if there would ever be a standardized flow or life cycle for information organizations?
2. This article states that the information source is the fundamental unit in the life cycle of information and that it cannot be broken down without being destroyed. This made me think of the trend by large publishers, like Springer, to depend on libraries to provide them with their own publications to digitize in order to preserve and resell backfiles of books they once produced. While the library was not the creator of the information it was the preserver and a source of information but the original creator comes back to get the information that they no longer have. At this point the preserver becomes the original source and I wonder how that fits into this version of the information life cycle? 3. The article on digital archiving discussed emulating technologies instead of maintaining them as a way to preserving digital data. It seems that there should be enough information organizations or resources that preserve information to produce the economies of scale to fund the preservation of most outdated formats. Why is there such a problem with finding the funding for preserving older formats? What value and information are we losing by not capitalizing on these economies of scale, assuming they exist?
1. Levitan mentions Oettinger's and Horton's descriptions of information resources but criticizes both for their lack of time frame. In the case of information resources, wouldn't time frame be considered "situational" in this case?
2. When discussing the various models, the author writes that the system model assumes equilibrium and states that information production is a non- equilibrium process. What does she mean by that statement?
3. Levitan brings up Newman's differentiation between market-supplied information and institutional information and the externalities they exhibit, but fails to give much in the way of definition of the two terms. What do the two terms mean and what would some examples be?
1. I had a hard time understanding the difference between "information source" and "information resource." It seemed that information source referred to something tangible, like a document or book, and resources were collections of sources, like libraries. This caused a lot of confusion for me, as I'm used to interpreting "information resource" as anything which contains information. Is this semantic distinction necessary?
2. Levitan claims in the section about ownership externalities that there exist the means of keeping records of ownership and information creation, but that we lack "the proper incentives." What might she mean by proper incentives? What incentives other than legal claim to intellectual property and economic windfall can or should exist?
3. If documents, texts, and similar pieces of information are to be considered "information sources," how does one account for their production? Are these items not the products of a previous iteration of the cycle?
1. One of the basic premises of the article is that, “An information and knowledge-based society is dependent on information production for its economic health and welfare.” I am willing to believe this, but I wish there were some concrete examples of how exactly this plays out in the real world. Isn’t society first and foremost going to be dependent on things like agriculture, energy resources, industry and construction, health care, etc… while information will be more of a secondary concern, dependent on these more immediate necessities? Or perhaps information is always produced in tandem with these other foundational elements of society. But then how does information move into such a primary position that we would call society “knowledge-based”? Is it a matter of putting more value in information than we did before?
2. In her conclusion, Levitan proposes that, “On a theoretical level, we need to experiment with approaches that reflect a nonlinear, nonequilibrium process. We should look across the sciences to thermodynamics [58], oceanography, and ecology to borrow ideas which reflect continuous, dynamic evolution.” This idea is surprising and fascinating. This article, if I’m reading it right, was published in the early 80’s. Have there been studies into the flow of information since then that do, in fact, call upon these other sciences to help analyze its movements or economic effects?
3. “Dealing with the full life cycle provides a way to break out the operations, organization, and costs involved in establishing information resources.” So what do we do once we “break out” these aspects of information resources? Are we called upon to innovate them? I’m unclear as to what the end result of this life-cycle conceptualization is supposed to be.
1. At one point, Levitan writes about "placing information in its proper life cycle" (p. 6). Is placing items in their proper life cycle supposed to be used to determine their value or their place in the information production process? And does this apply to only preexisting information or information that is 'created', too?
ReplyDelete2. In this article, like in earlier articles, we discussed the idea of information as a resource. Since, according to the article, a main characteristic and benefit of information as a resource is its reuse, is it possible that there will be a time when information will become more valuable than other depletable resources?
3. If the "information production is indeed a value-added process" (p. 5) as the author claims, is information only valuable at the end of the information production cycle? Is it possible for some information to be worth more than other information? I feel like what was proposed in the article is a factory-like method for churning out information, but is that reliable when there are so many other factors that go into information production? Maybe we aren't a post-industrialist society at all, but just one that has turned from manufacturing steel, to manufacturing information.
For the question #2, I think that it rises another issue: how to determine the value of a type of resource? Since the author considered the information as a resource with a great capacity of reuse itself, how would he pinpoint the contribution of information to our world, an so-called information world?
DeleteFor the question #2, I think that it rises another issue: how to determine the value of a type of resource? Since the author considered the information as a resource with a great capacity of reuse itself, how would he pinpoint the contribution of information to our world, an so-called information world?
Delete1. The author says that “An information source is the fundamental unit in the life cycle of information production. It Is fundamental because it cannot be broken down without destroying the information. Information reflects the synergistic combination of medium and message.” What does the author mean by medium? The words spoken should be regarded different information source from the words written down on a piece of paper. But should the post on Twitter be different information source from the post on Facebook?
ReplyDelete2. The author states that "If it (information source) is to be reused, even by its creator, the source must be verified, mechanisms of intellectual and physical access must be added, including storage facilities, and various legal, organizational, and economic conditions, if present, must be addressed.” But what about the knowledge stored in one person’s mind? A very wise man has a lot of knowledge of the world and life. His knowledge is constantly institutionalized by years of experience. But his knowledge is only intellectually and physically accessible to himself. Should his knowledge or he as a person be regarded information source or resource?
1 - I'm curious as to how we determine which materials are intended for "re-use" in viewing Levitan's definition of information resources as anything meant to be reused/referenced. Is re-use determined by the researcher/user, or the author? How does this relate to personal records, such as correspondence or private journals, that were never actually intended to be used or read by the public sphere?
ReplyDelete2 - Something that's starting to bother me is the fact that our readings have yet to discuss the notion of privilege as it relates to the information economy. Levithan's analysis of supply-demand seems relevant/useful for a business setting, but what about public institutions such as archives/museums? Public collection scopes are essentially based on power structures - materials are deemed worthy of preservation based upon a socially constructed sense of value. How do we closely examine the biased (i.e. non-neutral) role of the archivist/collection development specialist/bibliographer when it comes to the "institutionalization" of information resources as described on page 47?
1. Levitan discusses the “life cycle of information production” in her article, mainly stressing that this cycle must be “continuous” and that an information resource is something that “can be tapped repeatedly” (47). However, must a resource be inexhaustible simply to be considered a resource? While it’s true that information resources are different than tangible ones, does the element of infinite continuity have to be present in order for something to be considered an information resource? If so, does that mean that something could be considered a resource at one time and then not at a later date?
ReplyDelete2. In her article, Levitan claims that “an information resource must coordinate agents and activities which . . . repackage and distribute its products and services” (49). I feel that Levitan doesn’t go into enough detail about what this entails. While I agree that an information resource should make available its products and services, and that certainly it should maintain a constant ease of access, should it really be responsible for distribution? Isn’t it enough that access to information is granted when needed?
3. Levitan briefly discusses the concept of information resources’ connection to property rights. While she touches on the fact that people associate information with “ownership” (especially intellectual property rights), she also says that “an information resource is purposely established for continuous reuse . . . Furthermore, excluding individuals from use or consumption is not only difficult, but antithetical to its purpose” (51). It’s unclear here whether Levitan is talking about “free” resources (such as libraries or free databases) or all resources. If it’s all resources, is exclusion really a bad thing? Copyright is certainly a concern here – should everyone be able to access everything simply because it’s an information resource? Does exclusivity mean that an information resource loses its status as such?
3 - This question touches on a really important point. The monetization of information and ongoing copyright/intellectual property issues are a continuous struggle for digitization programs, archives, and any person interested in scholarly research. The Aaron Swartz case is a particularly tragic and relevant example here, where using one's privileges as a student in a university (access to information) become a source of persecution if someone opts to share said information. There are also challenges in negotiating an individualistic Western conception of knowledge, which is somehow both extremely possessive ("I own this idea") and freedom-based ("I have the right to this information by virtue of my existence") that causes friction between different values, for example indigenous forms of knowledge that are not designed to be shared with outsiders, or are designated for specific community members. I don't think exclusivity means that an item loses its status as an information resource, but you've definitely stumbled upon a pretty serious grey area in terms of ethics. I tend to fall on the side that the knowledge creator or community who owns the material should be allowed to decide how the material is to be used, but the potential for abuse in that situation is pretty high, so I don't really believe there's a single right answer. As always, it depends.
Delete1. In this paper written in 1982, the author couldn't possibly foresee how "decentralization" changed the world 30 years later. The detailed model concerning life cycle of information production in the paper reflected that the author deemed that information source is mainly come from universities, industries or governments. I can fully understand why the authors thought in this way with the consideration of the cultural context in 1980's, the age that televisions and broadcasts still dominated the power of speech. However, even just taking a glance on current world, it's not hard to conclude that the power of speech has been transferred from a few entities to a large number of people. In this case, I'm wondering if the model in the paper applied to such a multi-polarized world?
ReplyDelete2. The author clarified the difference between information resource and information system in page 49. However, I doubted the explanation of the author, especially the example that the author held. The author said that the computer is an information system only after being programmed. He also said computers are not information resource. I agreed with the former assertion while put the latter one in doubt. According to my daily experience, most of information that I obtain for now comes from Internet. Meanwhile, I'll post my opinions and ideas to the information I read on the computer screen. In this case, computers participated in both information creating and information creation and information reuse. If tools can be considered as a kind of resource, why information tools like computers are kicked out of the concept of information resource?
1. In this paper written in 1982, the author couldn't possibly foresee how "decentralization" changed the world 30 years later. The detailed model concerning life cycle of information production in the paper reflected that the author deemed that information source is mainly come from universities, industries or governments. I can fully understand why the authors thought in this way with the consideration of the cultural context in 1980's, the age that televisions and broadcasts still dominated the power of speech. However, even just taking a glance on current world, it's not hard to conclude that the power of speech has been transferred from a few entities to a large number of people. In this case, I'm wondering if the model in the paper applied to such a multi-polarized world?
ReplyDelete2. The author clarified the difference between information resource and information system in page 49. However, I doubted the explanation of the author, especially the example that the author held. The author said that the computer is an information system only after being programmed. He also said computers are not information resource. I agreed with the former assertion while put the latter one in doubt. According to my daily experience, most of information that I obtain for now comes from Internet. Meanwhile, I'll post my opinions and ideas to the information I read on the computer screen. In this case, computers participated in both information creating and information creation and information reuse. If tools can be considered as a kind of resource, why information tools like computers are kicked out of the concept of information resource?
1. I think the model this paper proposed still have the applicability to today's world. The information nowadays, though more democratized, still has the same essence as the information that the paper discusses. The information on Twitter or Facebook would still go through the process of generation (posted by the users), institutionalization (data mined or aggregated by different social media tools), and so on.
Delete1. "Information resources may be classified as passive or active. As passive entities their use largely depends on the initiative and efforts of users. An individual acting as a "contact point" for an agency represents a prime example of a passive information resource" p. 47. Levitan seems to be combining steps of the information lifecycle here, as distribution of the information can be passive or active. This example talks about distribution methods, but how are the resources themselves passive or active? Are the resources that people want to work with active (actively developed), or are they the resources that are enhanced before distribution? Whereas passive information is just transferred without enhancement or further development?
ReplyDelete2. "A second category of the incomplete cycle covers only one phase, the generation and recording of the information source. There are relatively no attempts to institutionalize the source so that it can be reused or to distribute it. An historical archive is a typical example. When scholars and historians need to use such information, they spend much time locating, accessing, and finding what is useful to their need" p. 49. But aren't the scholars and historians providing enhancement to the source? They are locating and more than likely associating it with another information source – thus, connecting the two pieces. Are they not accessing its value and perhaps truthfulness? These are elements that are contributed back to the information resource.
3. "It becomes a resource when verified, edited, enhanced with a table of contents and index, and physically stored, and when the parties involved meet various legal, organizational, and financial requirements such as reflected in privacy acts, copyright laws, freedom of information acts, and formal and informal contractual arrangements." p. 47. "An information system generally refers to the interrelated processes of gathering, organizing, storing, retrieving, and disseminating information items" p. 49. I'm confused between an information resource and an information system. Both are sounding as though they are doing similar things. Does one use the system to turn an information source into an information resource?
1. I also felt like Levitan's discussion of active and passive information resources was a bit nonsensical. I feel like she the way she described the terms- the information resources themselves can't be labeled as either active or passive because she's really talking about the amount/the way people use those resources.
Delete"Are the resources that people want to work with active (actively developed), or are they the resources that are enhanced before distribution? Whereas passive information is just transferred without enhancement or further development?" I thought that both of these questions were excellent. Levitan really does not specify. However, Levitan was writing in 1982- WAY before the age of social media- and she might have conceptualized the creators and the consumers of information as two distinct bodies making a one way exchange of information. So I'm guessing it was more about what the information creators were doing with/how they were spreading the information more so than how the consumers were using it...
1. This paper fairly presciently looks into matters of the public good that must be addressed in the exclusive use of information. It is a debate we are still having, with collection and control of digital goods driving both markets and regulation. The author asks the question, and I shall repeat it, to what degree does the exclusive control of information create disparities of power? (Levitan 51)
ReplyDelete2. Levitan discusses Information Resources as something that should be viewed outside of traditional “Sender-Channel-Receiver” models, stating that we should look instead to “thermodynamics, oceanography, and ecology” (Levitan 53) for models of the behavior of information. Is this statement accurate to describe the internet, as an ecology in particular, a phenomenon which did not exist at the time of the paper’s publication?
3. Levitan addresses some of the economic impacts of information resources, particularly that “In general, economic theory has not been concerned with the notion and activities of reuse.” (44) This remains true to this day, as we struggle with limitations on numbers of downloads of digital goods, or DRM restrictions on content formats. How can modern firms handle products which have a marginal cost of zero to reproduce in a way that is equitable to the public good and private profit?
Your third question is one I've been wondering about for several of these articles, too. So far it seems as though entities like iTunes and the Kindle Store are depending on DRM and ease of use, but this clearly hasn't eliminated piracy. There's also the fact that content creators have to deal with massive corporations who have immense power over them if they want to make any money at all. (I learned while working in the publishing industry that your options are to sell your book on Amazon or lose about 60% of your potential sales -- which means that you have to play ball on Amazon's terms, potentially not being treated fairly, rather than completely lose a huge chunk of your profits.)
Delete1) Like the Hodge article, this article raises questions about the ownership of information, and which people or entities have the right to make that information more accessible and reusable. How do information resources account for “the question of copyright… and the rights of private industry to… profit from information” (51)? We have found in recent years especially that there are grey areas between preserving information and promoting its accessibility, and outright copyright violation. It would be interesting to explore how information professionals are negotiating those grey areas.
ReplyDelete2) We have previously discussed how limiting the distribution of information and forcing it to be treated against its nature as a rival commodity is one way that information has continued to be monetized. (See the JSTOR access controversy for an example.) Levitan also brings up the interesting point that exclusion and limitation of information access can be a question of power as well as money. What are some ways in which limiting access to information can reinforce the power of those who hold the information? Is controlling the flow of information necessarily always a bad thing?
3) Because “at no point in the production cycle is information cost free” (52), the capitalist economy demands that information continue to be monetized in order to ensure that the efforts of those who produce information sources and resources do not go uncompensated. Since this article’s publication in 1982, though, monetizing information has become increasingly difficult as the nonrival nature of information becomes harder and harder to artificially limit. How can producers of information resources ensure that they do not end up working for free?
1) On page 49 it says "There are relatively no attempts to institutionalize the source so that it can be reused or to distribute it. An historical archive is a typical example. When scholars and historians need to use such information, they will spend much time locating, accessing and finding what is useful to their needs." Why is it that archives have such a 'private' frame of mind when they were historically meant for the public and to be 'of the people'?
ReplyDelete2) "An information resource is purposely established for continuous reuse. It is set up so that it will not be depleted when used. Furthermore, excluding individuals from use or consumption is not only difficult, but antithetical to its purpose. Moreover, the continuous addition of new users does not diminish the worth of the resource to any individual -- current or future -- user..." Is there any equation or does the evolution of a field have an effect on a resource's value? Is there any way to note when precisely a resource's value may shift or alter?
3) How does the importance of information being a reusable resource for the public clash with the privatization of databases, where one must pay for articles of information and control over these assets is tightly enforced? How can information's full potential as a resource be realized when its value is so heavily regulated and controlled by an overall small number of individuals?
1. The author said an information resource is a source of information that has been established so that it can be reused. I think the concepts of sources and resources are confusing in this article. The author said history archive is a typical example of information source while the library is an information resource. However, if scholars need to use information in the library, it also cost their time and effort, as archive did. What’s more, by giving an example of “documents collected to establish a library", the author demonstrated a life cycle pattern when several information sources combine into one resource. So that means the documents are information source. Nevertheless, most documents are institutionalized and could be reused to some extent. Are documents information sources or information resources?
ReplyDelete2. Although the figure about information lifecycle seems reasonable I believe the reality is far more complicated than the figures showed us. For example, a man posted a twitter which describing the design of new Iphone, and then every friend of him knew it. In this case, the dissemination happened very early and even without any institutionalization or repackaging.
3. In the part of “Impact of Technology”, the author discussed economies of scale and scope. It is clear for me what economies of scale and economies of scope means, but I wonder if the technology could impact marketplaces in the same way as where many information resources established as “goods”. I want to figure out the connection between information life cycle and the “technology impacts”. The reason is that I think technology also impact every phrase in the information life cycle. Just as the author said, the information life cycle producing three types of “goods”, not only information resources but also information sources and information product/services.
Hi Xiaojing,
DeleteI was certainly complexed by the authors statement that libraries are a resource and archives are a source as well as they both are places where people come to reuse information. What I think the author is trying to say is that a book in a library is created to be reused by people through publication and placed in a library. The materials in an archive are often the working papers of someone, with no intent to have them published or distributed to the public, so these items don't undergo the process to make it a resource. This is my understanding of the authors explanation of what makes a resource or source, but I feel in this case she makes it sound like the institution/place of the library or archive is being judged as a resource, not the contents within. Many archives certainly end up publishing volumes of primary materials, which I would argue could be a resource. Levitan also writes that archives are not resources because there has been no attempt to institutionalize the source. I am not following what she considers as institutionalization as well. I would think that she is forgetting about business archives that are established directly in the company to serve as a resource to reuse or distribute the materials in it about that company.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. On page 52, Levitan writes that the information market is different than the traditional goods market because of the interdependence of producer and consumer. Is this true? Are their information resources that have independence between the producer and consumer?
ReplyDelete2. On page 47, Levitan says that sources are verified by a creator to be reused as a resource, though she does not explain what it means to verify a source. Do all creators go through a verification of a source they created? Wouldn’t it be inherently true to the creator?
1. Can information really be destroyed if you destroy the medium in which it is presented? (page.3)
ReplyDelete2. Is there really such a thing as information in the abstract, or is each instance of information unique? Information in the format of a magazine seems to have some different "affordances" and "constraints" compared to information on a website or in a book.
3. What are ways to find or come across unpublished papers such as the one by Hall?
1. Levitan's model of the information life cycle, though written in 1982, appears to be applicable to information created through social media today. Levitan writes about passive versus active entities. From her definitions, is social media passive, active or both? How so?
ReplyDelete2. Levitan discusses the idea that "the use of information products and services leads to the creation of new information and the start of a new cycle." First off, why is Levitan throwing these new terms around? Are information products and services synonyms for information resources? Also- in contemporary social media news stories are posted over and over to various blogs or facebook pages with an individual's own commentary. Is each posting its own information resource in its own cycle?
1. "An information source...cannot be broken down without destroying the information." From what I understood, Information Sources are a sub-category of Information Resources. I don't understand what the author is saying in the quote here. Is the author saying that if a source is broken down the source stops being a source and therefore stops producing information or is she saying that information requires an information source to be information?
ReplyDelete2. I appreciated that this author noted that "'Information' or 'knowledge' is often discussed in abstract or vague terms, whicb are not rigorous enough or clear enough to formulate researchable questions". This is one of my main concerns about information science so far. We've discussed this before but I'm glad that this was plainly stated in this article because I wholly agree with it.
3. I think this article says better what I was trying to say about information as a commodity. Information is fundamentally different than a goods resource mainly because of the life cycle that information as well as the notion that information is constantly evolving. This makes the comparison of information and commodities very difficult.
1. "An information source...cannot be broken down without destroying the information." From what I understood, Information Sources are a sub-category of Information Resources. I don't understand what the author is saying in the quote here. Is the author saying that if a source is broken down the source stops being a source and therefore stops producing information or is she saying that information requires an information source to be information?
ReplyDelete2. I appreciated that this author noted that "'Information' or 'knowledge' is often discussed in abstract or vague terms, whicb are not rigorous enough or clear enough to formulate researchable questions". This is one of my main concerns about information science so far. We've discussed this before but I'm glad that this was plainly stated in this article because I wholly agree with it.
3. I think this article says better what I was trying to say about information as a commodity. Information is fundamentally different than a goods resource mainly because of the life cycle that information as well as the notion that information is constantly evolving. This makes the comparison of information and commodities very difficult.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. The author talks about the concept of an information resource that is helpful in defining an ‘information and knowledge-based society’. Such a kind of society is dependent on information production for its economic health and welfare. How can information not be depleted when purchased? Doesn't the reuse capability have limits? Will such a situation cause poor economic health and welfare?
ReplyDelete2. The ‘black box’ theory is visualized into various models, such as channel model and system model.The "system" is considered as a refinement of the "channel," not only stressing input, process, and output, but also feedback. So is the channel model more advantageous? It has all the levels of the system model and some additional components as well. What other new models can be considered that are not related to these and can evaluate information as well.
3. The establishment of new information resources leads to economies of scale and scope as the author points out. Economics of scale by definition is the cost advantages that applies to certain organization. To establish new resources, some processing and transmission technologies are involved. Do establishment of these technologies cause reduction in the economic health? And is the cost advantage the final result rather than an initial one after all the cost adjustments?
1. In the article, the author raised a concept of information resource- an information resource stands at the midpoint of the life cycle, integrating and coordinating the various actors and activities of these phases. During the process of information resource establishment, what is the difference (advantages and disadvantages) after digitalization emerges in the process?
ReplyDelete2. The author mentioned there will be changes or updates of information, so if changes occur, which phase will need to be changed the most (source creation, resource establishment or information product/service production)?
3. The author classifies information resource into passive one and active one, and pointed out the main function of information resources is to coordinate and integrate agents and actions, but I think all the information resource are passive because they are all manipulated by people to coordinate and integrate, information resource cannot achieve these functionalities by themselves. So could you give me an example to illustrate that point?
1. At the end of P46, the author claims that an information source is fundamental because it cannot be broken down without destroying the information. But, does this reason make sense? I don't think that information could be destroyed, since it might exist in humans' minds for ever. Perhaps, what the author means here is the carriers of information, such as text, or pictures?
ReplyDelete2. When explaining the information life cycle, the author says the "the use of information products and services inherently leads to the creation of new information and the start of a new cycle". My second question is how to deal with the information source and resource after completing the information products and services?
3. I agree with the author's opinion that the information market is structured not only according to traditional economic pracices but also according to technical, legal, political, and organizational conditions and actions. And, he also suggests that private companies keep track of government activities in market relationships. So, I am thinking that, besides the legal and political factors, can government influence information market in other aspects by using other methods?
1. I am curious how Levitan would deal with the malleability of “information sources” as they stand today? It seems to me that the framework that is presented would have trouble dealing with the fine line distinction between what constitutes an “information source” and “information resource. I agree with the author’s contention that the information life cycle is not linear but, I am also wondering how he might look at it in the present day?
ReplyDelete2. I have to agree with Levitan that the field of archiving has yet to figure out an optimal approach for maximizing “reuse” into its working process. However, I am curious about how fields such as thermodynamics, oceanography, and ecology might help to redefine the assumptions of information resources? This part was confusing and I am wondering if anyone might provide an example?
3. I am curious if Levitan would feel that the internet fits into his working definition of how information is produced on a whole. He states that this process involves institutionalization, management and maintenance, and distribution phases but I wonder if the Internet undermines (at least visibly) these processes. I am curious then how one would do any sort of economic analysis of information resources if breaking them apart or disaggregating them is impossible?
1. The information transfer model described has five stage: origination, recording, preservation, end-use and transmission. When we use google searching engine, it will search the result real time or just display the result set already preserved?
ReplyDelete2. Karen try to convince us that ‘This is clearly not the ease with information resources, which are established so as not to be depleted when purchased’. It is easy to understand that information is not depleted when purchased, but it is still possible that information will be useless when it is out of date.
3. It raises an interesting point that has relationship with the former assigned article. It emphasizes that the continuous addition of new users does not diminish the worth of the resource to any individual-current or future-user. Rather, it enhances the value of the resource. This similar idea has been mentioned in other readings.
1. To clarify, when Levitan refers to the concept of an information system, defining it as the “interrelated processes of gathering, organizing, storing, retrieving and disseminating information” (p. 49) is she implying that information systems are part of the information life cycle? The information life cycle, as I have known it, typically includes these steps, but I was having trouble determining if, in Levitan’s eyes, these are separate ideas or all part of the bigger picture.
ReplyDelete2. Levitan makes the distinction between information resources, or products, I suppose, and other material commodities, but in her view, information products can still be bought and sold, yes? With that in mind, in the example she offers of RTECS (p. 48), she discusses at what point an information source becomes and information resource, and that is when it becomes institutionalized in three different contexts. At what point would these develop into information products? In scenario number 2 the information resource is offered to subscribers presumably paying a fee. Does this not mark it as a product rather than a resource?
3. Towards the end of the article, Levitan writes that the continuous addition of new users enhances the value of the resource (p. 51). How? In what context or situation is this true? I’m not arguing with the statement, but am interested in delving further into it.
1 On page 7, what does information market mean? Is that a market produce information goods or a market in the information age? Traditional market also needs to take consideration of economics, social contexts.
ReplyDelete2 On page 8, the author talks about the exclusion of information. What about the same software for different group of users, such like students price for PS? And what about the free and paid email? Are they account for a kind of exclusion?
3 On page 8, institutional information can affect ownership externalities, which results inability to enforce ownership. Then how could we view the value of the information product?
Many articles and journals find themselves locked behind a pay wall that prevents many classes of users from accessing and utilizing the information available. Where do these kinds of information resources lie within the life cycle?
ReplyDeleteIn the introduction, Levitan notes that a postindustrial society is “an information and knowledge-based society.” This idea coupled with the information life cycle leaves me to wonder how information existed in the preindustrial societies of the world. Can the same definitions be applied and if so does this change the idea of of the life cycle?
In my first question I mentioned the use of paywalls when dealing with information. In the section about Public Good Externalities, Levitan touches on this subject and flat out states, “An information resource is purposely established for continuous reuse.” How then are journals and articles that find themselves overlooked or even dismissed as they require money to be accessed true information resources?
1. On page 44 Levitan says that “information production requires continuous reuse of information, and therein lies the dependence of a society on its information resources.” I think also that information production is also a result of what information we choose to eliminate. By eliminating resources we no longer need or are useful or outdated, society can spend more time developing future ideas rather than on incorrect information or resources.
ReplyDelete2. On page 47, Levitan talks about information resources being passive and active. She says that “an individual acting as a “contact point” for an agency represents a prime example of a passive information resource.” I don’t understand how if an individual is exerting an effort to use information resources how that would be a “passive” action. Wouldn’t information resources themselves be a passive resource until someone utilizes them, which would then turn them into an active resource? At what point does a resource become an active or passive thing?
3. In the section “Ownership Externalities” on p. 51, she says that in reference to information resources that “exclusion is possible, however, although costly, and leads directly to questions of information as power.” I’m curious how this pertains to the lifecycles of academic databases that one must access by a proxy or a paywall. How useful are these resources really of they are so hard to get to and why are they so inaccessible to the general public?
1. The author mentions 5 steps in the information transfer (figure 1): origination, recording, preservation, end-use, and transmission. I know this was created 50 years ago, and there must be some limitations. But I still wonder what the difference between recording and preservation is. I mean the computer was not used widely in 1950s and 1960s, so when information was recorded, the most common thing at that time was words were recorded on papers. And to some degree, it means words were preserved on papers.
ReplyDelete2. The author says ‘an information source is the fundamental unit in the life cycle of information production. It is fundamental because it cannot be broken down without destroying the information.’ I believe information is formed with data. Why couldn’t data be the fundamental unit in the life cycle of information production? And is ‘destroying the information’ really a big deal?
3. The author states the life cycle of information production in simple version (figure 2) and detailed version (figure 3). Both of them show us the process of information production, but neither of them tells us form which the information source is formed. In the author’s opinion, the life cycle begins with source and ends with product/service (figure 4). So should there be something before the ‘source’?
1 - Levitan suggests early in the article that "information resources...are established so as not to be depleted when purchased" (p.3). Really? I'm a little hung up on the purchase piece of this idea. Aren't most information resources free--and if not, shouldn't they be??
ReplyDelete2 - I'm intrigued by the information transfer and production model (p. 45-6), and I wonder if and how the theory behind the ones presented in the article hold true/change in different cultural contexts or frameworks. Or, are these ideas fairly universal?
3 - I appreciate the "Needed Research" section of the article, and in particular, its layout and clarity. Seeing that the article is 20+ years old, I wonder to what extent these topics have been evaluated (and have possibly changed) since the time of the article's publication. Also, I'm curious if Levitan had any ideas as to what academic disciplines this needed research would best come out of--information, either in (or not in) its most interdisciplinary form, or somewhere else?
1. In this article the author describes information resources as either active or passive. An active information resource is one that engages in dissemination of its information of its own volition. A passive information resource is one that relies on the user to come to it to access the information. Do information resources have to be either active or passive? Is it possible for an information resource to be both active and passive?
ReplyDelete2. The information life cycle in this article has three main parts. These parts are the information source that leads to the information resource that leads to the information product or service. The author insists that information flows from one to the other. However these day large amounts of unfiltered data, like personal data, is being sold from one company to another. IS this a case of the information source skipping the information resource phase and going straight to the information product or is this data somehow an information resource?
3. In this article the author discusses the concept of ownership externalities and how they relate to information. Ownership externalities are the effects, both positive and negative, of the inability to clearly delineate ownership. How does this concept relate to the modern internet where we have services like iTunes and other pay services that make us pay money to use information that we do not truly own?
1. This article reminded me of the economic value and impact of libraries on communities. The article stated that information resources don’t have an economic model to follow, but information resources are so varied, public and private, that I don’t believe there could be a system that properly addresses both. Public, private, and for profit institutions would seemingly have different motivations and use for information so I wonder if there would ever be a standardized flow or life cycle for information organizations?
ReplyDelete2. This article states that the information source is the fundamental unit in the life cycle of information and that it cannot be broken down without being destroyed. This made me think of the trend by large publishers, like Springer, to depend on libraries to provide them with their own publications to digitize in order to preserve and resell backfiles of books they once produced. While the library was not the creator of the information it was the preserver and a source of information but the original creator comes back to get the information that they no longer have. At this point the preserver becomes the original source and I wonder how that fits into this version of the information life cycle?
3. The article on digital archiving discussed emulating technologies instead of maintaining them as a way to preserving digital data. It seems that there should be enough information organizations or resources that preserve information to produce the economies of scale to fund the preservation of most outdated formats. Why is there such a problem with finding the funding for preserving older formats? What value and information are we losing by not capitalizing on these economies of scale, assuming they exist?
1. Levitan mentions Oettinger's and Horton's descriptions of information resources but criticizes both for their lack of time frame. In the case of information resources, wouldn't time frame be considered "situational" in this case?
ReplyDelete2. When discussing the various models, the author writes that the system model assumes equilibrium and states that information production is a non- equilibrium process. What does she mean by that statement?
3. Levitan brings up Newman's differentiation between market-supplied information and institutional information and the externalities they exhibit, but fails to give much in the way of definition of the two terms. What do the two terms mean and what would some examples be?
1. I had a hard time understanding the difference between "information source" and "information resource." It seemed that information source referred to something tangible, like a document or book, and resources were collections of sources, like libraries. This caused a lot of confusion for me, as I'm used to interpreting "information resource" as anything which contains information. Is this semantic distinction necessary?
ReplyDelete2. Levitan claims in the section about ownership externalities that there exist the means of keeping records of ownership and information creation, but that we lack "the proper incentives." What might she mean by proper incentives? What incentives other than legal claim to intellectual property and economic windfall can or should exist?
3. If documents, texts, and similar pieces of information are to be considered "information sources," how does one account for their production? Are these items not the products of a previous iteration of the cycle?
1. One of the basic premises of the article is that, “An information and knowledge-based society is dependent on information production for its economic health and welfare.” I am willing to believe this, but I wish there were some concrete examples of how exactly this plays out in the real world. Isn’t society first and foremost going to be dependent on things like agriculture, energy resources, industry and construction, health care, etc… while information will be more of a secondary concern, dependent on these more immediate necessities? Or perhaps information is always produced in tandem with these other foundational elements of society. But then how does information move into such a primary position that we would call society “knowledge-based”? Is it a matter of putting more value in information than we did before?
ReplyDelete2. In her conclusion, Levitan proposes that, “On a theoretical level, we need to experiment with approaches that reflect a nonlinear, nonequilibrium process. We should look across the sciences to thermodynamics [58], oceanography, and ecology to borrow ideas which reflect continuous, dynamic evolution.” This idea is surprising and fascinating. This article, if I’m reading it right, was published in the early 80’s. Have there been studies into the flow of information since then that do, in fact, call upon these other sciences to help analyze its movements or economic effects?
3. “Dealing with the full life cycle provides a way to break out the operations, organization, and costs involved in establishing information resources.” So what do we do once we “break out” these aspects of information resources? Are we called upon to innovate them? I’m unclear as to what the end result of this life-cycle conceptualization is supposed to be.