65.

3 1

J U L Y

WHAT KIND OF SCIENCE SHOULD INFORMATION SCIENCE BE?

Silvio Ceccato

Assuming information becomes communication when the twoparts perform the same operations, that is when they develop
the same thought, a science concerned with information is tobe directed, first of all, towards the individualization,analysis and description of these operations, in addition tothe studies on the physical aspects of the messages beingtransmitted.
A second step may consist of examining how the operationsof the two parts are made public, that is, of examining theways of communication, in particular preparing an operational
grammar.
During a third stage our attention will be focussed onwhatever can facilitate or hinder the repetition of the operation of the person who informs by the person being informed.
The main topics of this research are: attitudes and values
which may be shared or not between the two parts; and thematching up of thought with sensations, emotions, etc.

Decision theory and logico-linguistics:
possible foundations for a Shallow 1
and a 'deep1 science of information
W. S. Cooper

Like a swimming pool, information science has a shallow
and a deep end.
The shallow end deals with the grosser statistics of information usage, and attempts to supply rational
solutions to the problem of how to design literature searchsystems of maximal utility.
The deep end deals as well withthe fine structure of particular coding systems, ie languages;
and this deeper penetration is what is needed in the design of

66.

question-answering systems, fact retrieval systems, and otheradvanced types of information systems which must 'understand1
to some extent the information they manipulate.
In thereceived taxonomy, the shallow and deep ends of information
science correspond (more or less) to theoretical bases fordesigning 'reference retrieval' and 'data retrieval' systems
respectively.
If the swimming-pool characterization of information
science is accepted, a case can be made that the 'shallow'
part of the science is largely an application and elaborationof decision theory.
To maximize the collective utility toits users of a literature search system, one must first define'utility'; one must next find ways of predicting the probabilities of certain future events; and finally one must
somehow put the utility and probability predictions together
and come up with design decisions.
Classical decision theory stands available as the currently received logic for how
to do these kinds of things.
The 'deep' regions of information science involve utility and probability considerations
too, but now these emerge as just two of the elements of afar more extensive theory which is partly linguistic, partly
logical, in character.
Logical considerations are becoming
more prominent in the work of some descriptive linguists, and
it is reasonable to expect that the study of logical inferencesamong linguistic expressions will eventually be seen as central
to 'deep' information science.
It has been demonstrated manytimes over that systems of deductive and inductive inference
are indispensable to the design of most advanced information
systems, and if the inferences are to take place in richlanguages, the essentially logico-linguistic nature of theunderlying theory becomes clear.

M. Kochen'What kind of sceince is information science?'
My brief
answer to that question is that it is meta-science, or thescience of science.
It should not be forced into the existing typology of science, though it draws heavily on both the