I remember the days when data was data, and information was a structured, usable form of that data. And then came knowledge, and a horde of definitions distinguishing data from information, and information from knowledge. We moved on from ‘data’ management to ‘information’ systems. And then we got ‘knowledge’ in knowledge management systems, knowledge bases, knowledge repositories, and more such systems.

I am often asked if this distinction even matters anymore. After all, Google has taken on itself the task of codifying and storing all the ‘knowledge’ that humankind has accumulated over the ages, and for most people, it seems to be succeeding in doing just that. (Although I beg to disagree)!! Imagine a world without Google today. Yes, it’s scary, but is it ‘knowledge’ that we get on Google, or merely ‘information’. Or is it ‘data’? Again, does it matter?

Well, yes, it does matter. I believe it would be wrong to classify all the information a person can get on Google as ‘knowledge’. Knowledge isn’t merely an assemblage of facts, howsoever structured. And it isn’t just the ideas all of us carry in our brain. Understanding the nature of knowledge necessarily introduces the concept of context - what is ‘knowledge’ may be commodity information tomorrow; what is knowledge for one, may be nothing more than just words for another person; what is knowledge in one situation might be useless in another. And the biggest attribute that truly distinguishes knowledge from information and data is the fact that it’s ’sticky’ - it cannot be so easily shared or transmitted from one person to the other. It takes practice, understanding, and time to acquire knowlege, make it grow, and most importantly, to apply this knowledge.

What Google or other search and discovery engines can present to a user is a portal to the world of information. How this information is assimilated, turned into knowledge inside each individual’s head, and applied to a ‘higher cause’, is where the difference lies.

I am not a purist or a philosopher/scientist in search of the final answer. And yet, I believe understanding the difference is vital if we have to achieve our goals as a society. Some may be surprised that the roots of this article lie as far back as 1945. In July that year, Dr. Vannevar Bush, the Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development in the United States, published an article in The Atlantic Monthly called “As We May Think”. And for decades, this article has been the guiding force for generations of scientists and information analysts. And if you’re a budding engineer or an information analyst with experience in single digit years, I am sure you’ll be surprised if you read this article. Surprised because it was written 61 years ago, but more because the challenges Dr. Bush mentioned in the article with respect to codifying, sharing and using knowledge still remain valid.

Knowing what makes information valuable in a given context will help us design better systems for managing content, collaboration and bridging the gap between knowledge ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ and allow the ‘Semantic Web’ to transcend structural codification and relate to a user’s needs. And that’s the revolution we all can look forward to in the years ahead. In my future articles I’ll try and discuss more about how this Semantic Web is different from what we know of the web today, and how it’ll change our lives like never before!