## 1 Introduction
### The Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom Hierarchy  
[PERSON] (1989) proposed a hierarchy based on the levels of data, information, knowledge, understanding and wisdom [4]. This data-information-knowledge-wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy (also variously referred to as the \"knowledge hierarchy\", \"information hierarchy\" and \"knowledge pyramid\") is considered to be one of the most fundamental and widely recognised models in the information and knowledge literatures [5]. It has since been modified by different authors and used to contextualise data, information, knowledge, and sometimes wisdom, with respect to each other, and identify processes involved in the transformation from a lower level to the next level. [PERSON] _et al_. (2004), in an online article [6], proposed a modification of [PERSON]'s DIKW hierarchy to represent the transition from data to information to knowledge, and finally to wisdom, whereby \"understanding\" supports the transition from each level to the next. Information is created by understanding relations between data; knowledge is created by understanding patterns in information; and wisdom embodies an understanding of fundamental principles embodied within the knowledge. According to [PERSON] _et al_., people who have \"understanding\" can undertake useful actions because they can synthesise new knowledge, or at least new information, from what is previously known and understood [6]. In this article, we have used an adaptation of this hierarchy to discuss VRO approaches to information and knowledge management-as discussed in Section 3. [PERSON] (1999) notes that \"data\" represents non-contextualised observations, or facts, which are not always directly meaningful; whereas \"information\" results from placing data within a meaningful context. Knowledge is what a user believes and values, and is based on the organised accumulation of information through experience, communication or inference. Knowledge can be viewed both as something to be stored and manipulated, as well as applying expertise [7]. [PERSON] _et al_. (1998) describe knowledge as \"information combined with experience, context, interpretation, reflection and perspective\" [8]. They contend that it is a high value form of information that can be used to make decisions. [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2003) also believe that information and data can only merely inform (or confuse), but that knowledge can guide action [9]. According to [PERSON] (1989) knowledge can be obtained either by transmission from someone who has it, _i.e_., by instruction, or by extracting it from experience [4]. [PERSON] (2000) contends that knowledge is therefore possessed by humans (e.g., beliefs, perspectives, concepts, judgments, methodologies and know-how) and is used to \"receive\" information (e.g., recognise and identify; analyse, interpret and evaluate; synthesise, assess and decide) and act on it [10]. [PERSON] _et al_. (2000) described the progression of data into information and then into knowledge [11]. To produce information, data needs to be framed, categorised, aggregated and contextualised. Transformation from information to knowledge occurs as the result of two complementary dynamics: the \"structuring\" of data and information that imposes or reveals order and pattern; as well as the human \"acting\" on information that attributes sense and salience. Information depends on an aggregation of data, whilst knowledge builds on accumulated experience. [PERSON] (2000) describes the discontinuity between information and knowledge being caused by how new knowledge is created from received information. To become knowledge, new insights need to be internalised by establishing links with already existing knowledge. Therefore, prior knowledge is used to make sense of received information to create new knowledge [10]. Wisdom is a less tangible concept and is only defined in three of the 15 textbooks on information and knowledge management reviewed by [PERSON] (2006) [5]. [PERSON] _et al_.