Where Is the Message? Contributions to Understanding Information Science, No. 2. (Sessio Taurino)

The following essay is the second in a projected series intended to provide working librarians with a better understanding of certain concepts often used in a confusing fashion in the literature of library and information science. Many of these concepts are used in a confusing fashion because the authors simply do not understand the ideas themselves. They have, in effect, attempted to build a body of theory without making sure of the foundation. Much of the projected series of explanatory articles may also seem confusing to the practicing librarian. This will not result, however, from confusion on this author's part about concepts. The concepts to be used in exegesis are not drawn from library and information science at all; rather, they come from well-established disciplines with a solid core of understanding such as philosophy. The reader's confusion may result from unfamiliarity with the concepts of the disciplines to be used. For example, number 1 in this series drew upon Kierkegaardian existentialism for an understanding of the "reference interview." While all possible attempts will be made to explain unfamiliar terms and concepts, it is still possible that, contrary to the intention expressed by the title of this series, the reader may be more confused at the end of an article than at the beginning. The author has taken this possibility into consideration, and, for those of you falling into the above category, and for those readers who simply do not wish to take the time to read the full article, the following is suggested. Each article will be prefaced by a one sentence "statement" which will give the entire substance of the article. This statement can either be placed in the reader's memory bank on faith alone, or it can be arrived at by following the reasoning in the full article. There may, of course, be some who will never agree with the statements; this is the risk faced by any interpreter. Statement: Channel is not a separate entity or form from message; rather, channel is simply a term that stands for a message occupying different positions in a medium and should be replaced in the professional literature with the term locus. Summary The following applies a variant form of Boethian topical analysis to the confusion surrounding the meaning of the term channel. (1) The results are subjected to the principle entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate leading to the formulation of the following statement: A channel is not a separate entity or form from a message. (2) Channel is simply a term that stands for a message occupying different positions in a medium. The following outline represents the generally accepted version of Boethius' topical analysis system. Topic Schemata 1.0 Intrinsic topics 1.1 Definition 1.2 Whole: 1.21 Genus 1.22 In quantity 1.23 In mode 1.24 In time 1.25 In place 1.3 Part: 1.31 Species 1.32 In quantity 1.33 In mode 1.34 In time 1.35 In place Topic Discussion 1.1 Definition In a macro sense, what is to be defined is the communication process, i.e., the process of information transfer. If B = "information transfer" and A = "messages are transmitted from source to receiver by a medium through some channel," then each part of A is a necessary component of B, and B is defined by A when the following tests are met: Whatever is predicated of B is also predicated of A (if information is being transferred, messages are being transmitted). Whatever is removed from B is also removed from A (if there is no information, there is no message). The inverse of the above two tests must also hold, i.e., whatever is predicated of A is also predicated of B. Therefore, in the above macro sense, channel, message, and medium would be considered parts (1.3) of the whole (1.2). However, our present interest is micro, in the concept channel; therefore, the Topic Schemata will be applied on a micro level, and the following hypothesis will be tested: medium = whole and channel = part. …