Knowledge vs. Information vs. Data
By DonMezei
I'm just throwing this idea out for general consumption. Basically, the idea ties in to my other description:
Knowledge = (the old shoe)
Information = (the)(old)(shoe)
Data = (t)(h)(e)(o)(l)(d)(s)(h)(o)(e)
Now, the axiom is:
Data is one bit: (t)
Info is two or more bits of data: (the)
Knowledge is two or more bits of info: (the)(old)
But the key is using the formula for what it all equates to:
Know how = knowledge + (information + data)
Where know how (which is either the individual or the organization) decides what is meaningful enough to be deemed knowledge or information or data.
For example, we can agree that the letters of the alphabet have meaning, so (t) is data. But we may disagree that (tl) is meaningful enough to be considered information. So it reverts back to data (t)(l) in our mind's eye. Same paradigm holds true for information and knowledge etc.
We might 'see' in our mind's eye (old)(shoe) or we might 'see' (old shoe) or (o)(l)(d)(s)(h)(o)(e).
The question is, does our mind's eye require two or more bits of data to 'see' information, and does it require two or more bits of information to 'see' knowledge.
Because (a shoe) is (a)(shoe) or data + information. So is 'a shoe' information while 'a brown shoe' knowledge?
It just might be possible, which would represent the syntax of KM.
One of the immediate things that comes to mind is that for the equation to work, data has to be made into information and then knowledge in order for the sum to equate with know-how. In other words, we can act upon data, unless we are able to transform the data into knowledge.
So the axiom would be we can only act upon knowledge, but knowledge is inherently information + data. We can't act upon:
(t)(h)(e)(o)(l)(d)(s)(h)(o)(e)
Until we can see:
(the old shoe)
So KM transforms information and data into knowledge, which we act upon towards some particular goal. And vice versa. KM transforms knowledge into information and data. The rationale for doing so is always the same, to evolve, improve, etc etc, at least in the ideal world.
Source: http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=104337&d=1&h=417&f=56&dateformat=%o