Dear FIS colleagues,


As a newcomer to FIS, I feel myself very uncomfortable when I have to
interrupt the ongoing discourse with something that looks for me quite
natural but is lacking in our current public dialog. What I have in mind is
that in every discussion or argument exchange, first of all, the grounding
axioms and mutually agreed assumptions should be established and declared as
the basis for further debating and reasoning. Maybe in our case, these
things are implied by default, but I am not a part of the dominant
coalition. For this reason, I would dare to formulate some grounding axioms
that may be useful for those who are not FIS insiders:


1. Information is a linguistic description of structures observable in a
given data set

2. Two types of data structures could be distinguished in a data set:
primary and secondary data structures.

3. Primary data structures are data clusters or clumps arranged or occurring
due to the similarity in physical properties of adjacent data elements. For
this reason, the primary data structures could be called physical data

4. Secondary data structures are specific arrangements of primary data
structures. The grouping of primary data structures into secondary data
structures is a prerogative of an external observer and it is guided by his
subjective reasons, rules and habits. The secondary data structures exist
only in the observer's head, in his mind. Therefore, they could be called
meaningful or semantic data structures. 

5. As it was said earlier, Description of structures observable in a data
set should be called "Information". In this regard, two types of information
must be distinguished - Physical Information and Semantic Information. 

6. Both are language-based descriptions; however, physical information can
be described with a variety of languages (recall that mathematics is also a
language), while semantic information can be described only by means of
natural human language.


This is a concise set of axioms that should preface all our further
discussions. You can accept them. You can discard them and replace them with
better ones. But you can not proceed without basing your discussion on a
suitable and appropriate set of axioms.


That is what I have to say at this moment.

My best regards to all of you,



Fis mailing list

Reply via email to