ABSTRACT:

This entry explores the persistent ambiguity surrounding the concept of “information,” focusing on how Library and Information Science (LIS) scholars can benefit from integrating Werner Gitt’s theory of Universal Information (UI) with José María Díaz Nafría’s multidimensional framework. While Díaz Nafría’s threefold syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic model illuminates the layered complexity of the term, it stops short of providing a definition. Gitt’s Universal Information extends this conversation through a fourth, apobetic dimension—emphasizing purpose as the ultimate determinant of meaning. By mapping key LIS theories (Bates, Buckland, Cornelius, Pratt) to this unified fourfold model, this paper argues that Gitt’s framework provides a constructive tool for aligning philosophical, operational, and theological understandings of information. In doing so, it highlights how information, properly conceived, is never neutral but inherently purposive—directed toward ordered understanding and transformative knowledge. This synthesis not only clarifies how “information” functions within scholarly discourse but also opens new pathways for understanding librarianship as a purposeful vocation grounded in meaning, context, and intentionality.

FULL ENTRY:

Does any word cry ambiguity as frequently as “information”? Everyone speaks about information with confidence, but when asked how, precisely, one defines information, the conversation soon resembles a lively Bible study: thoughtful interpretations abound, no two quite the same, and consensus lingers. Sadly, despite its critical role in Library and Information Science (LIS), much scholarly literature aiming to define the term “information” faces similar challenges. Werner Gitt’s concept of Universal Information (UI), read alongside José María Díaz Nafría’s dimensional model, clarifies the philosophical and operational boundaries of the term. By mapping leading LIS definitions to Gitt’s depiction, this entry proposes UI as a foundational tool for an interdisciplinary understanding of information.

Gitt’s UI stands as a promising beacon in conversations about what information truly means. But to engage his concept thoughtfully, it will be helpful to establish a broader context. Díaz Nafría’s (2010) multidimensional framework provides precisely this—mapping out the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic aspects and how they shape how we understand information. Starting with Díaz Nafría’s (2010) comprehensive structure provides a foundation for assessing Gitt’s definition and helps us understand how UI fits within the larger tapestry of information theory.

Díaz Nafría (2010) observed a decades-long trend in which the scientific use of the concept of information became more precise yet less manageable, creating greater tension in efforts to provide a straightforward definition (p. 78). Subsequently, Díaz Nafría (2010) argues that the term “information” remains deeply ambiguous in contemporary discourse, balancing its historical roots with diverse interpretations shaped by everyday use and scientific precision. This ambiguity is heightened by tensions between rigid, mathematical theories and open, complex models across different disciplines and cultural contexts (pp. 77–78). Díaz Nafría (2010) uses a “dimensional approach” (pp. 84–87) to address information’s ambiguous nature, highlighting how three dimensions can clarify the term “information”: syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic. Such a process aims to clarify by examining the “scope and intention of the different information concepts” (Díaz Nafría, 2010, p. 84).

Díaz Nafría’s (2010) syntactic dimension looks at how information is expressed or structured (p. 84). For example, the physical shape, color (red), and letters “STOP” are the raw signals or symbols on a stop sign, and they are presented this way to create meaning. The physical symbols—the shape, color, and letters—function at the level of syntax; they are organized in a recognizable form. Just as the components of the red stop sign express syntax, likewise, a Library of Congress call number has syntax: SB1.A65 I55 2010. For a call number, the syntactic level focuses on the arrangement of letters, numbers, and punctuation according to cataloging rules. If I argued that SBIA 16520.0155 was a Library of Congress call number, I would likely be considered silly because this number does not follow the structure (or syntax) of a Library of Congress call number. Perhaps this is similar to what it might be like to see a green square-shaped sign with the letters “SOTP.” Awkward! The syntactic dimension does not focus on what the information means (although changes at the syntactic level do impact this), but on the way the call number (or stop sign) expresses the information (Díaz Nafría, 2010, p. 84). The call number SB1.A65 I55 2010 follows the syntax of a Library of Congress call number, and the octagon-shaped red sign with the letters “STOP” conforms to familiar norms. Therefore, I can use syntax to proceed to Díaz Nafría’s next level—the semantic component—to understand what they are communicating. Although SBIA 16520.0155 and a green square-shaped stop sign may adhere to specific rules, neither conforms to the protocols we are familiar with. Subsequently, they cannot be considered information apart from the establishment or discovery of rules; in other words, until one has syntax.

Díaz Nafría’s (2010) next dimension is semantic. The semantic dimension examines what the information means in specific contexts. When I am driving and see a red octagon-shaped sign with the letters “STOP,” I recognize it as a stop sign. Semantic typically refers to meaning in the context of language or logic. Many people in developed nations are familiar with the red, yellow, and green of traffic lights and their use on roads and streets internationally. However, if someone driving saw a stop sign and was unfamiliar with the language and logic behind traffic signals, they would likely run right through it because the red stop sign would have little to no meaning. Similarly, in the context of the Library of Congress call number, SB1.A65 I55 2010 bears little meaning if one is not familiar with the semantics of a library and a library call number (knowing that “SB” is a subfield of “S,” that “2010” represents a date of publication, etc.). Lacking semantics, an individual with this call number is like a driver approaching a four-way intersection with a red octagon-shaped sign displaying the letters “STOP,” yet unaware that they actually need to stop. Both contexts, lacking semantics, brew potential devastation.

Semantics point to pragmatics: the actual impact or use of the information. In the context of the stop sign, the driver, having understood the syntax and semantics, applies the brakes and stops the car. The pragmatic effect depends on the situation: obeying the sign to prevent an accident and conforming to social and legal rules in context. Similarly, Díaz Nafría’s (2010) third information dimension is pragmatic; how does one value or use the information in a particular context? In a library, the call number SB1.A65 I55 2010 has little value unless used to actually locate the book. A curious student researching international agriculture wants to confirm whether this work will help them understand contemporary issues in the field. Therefore, in assisting the student, a librarian takes them to a book with this call number. The librarian uses the information to find the book. In a pragmatic context, the usefulness of the information plays a central role.

While Díaz Nafría’s (2010) three dimensions provide a framework, illuminating information’s scope and ambiguity, they do not themselves define the concept. Werner Gitt (2023), in his book, Information: The Key to Life, takes Díaz Nafría’s work one step further and defines information. Gitt (2023), aligning with many scholars who aim to determine the meaning of information (cf. Belkin, 1975, p. 54; Buckland, 1991, p. 351; Capurro & Hjørland, 2003, p. 354; Dretske, 1981, p. 44; Floridi, 2005, p. 351; Gabor, 1953, p. 2; Jones, 2010, para. 7; Machlup, 1962, p. 14; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 58; Qvortrup, 1993, p. 7), notes “(t)he word ‘information,’ as it is used in everyday language, is somewhat vague and subject to confusion…” (p. 18). Gitt (2023) labels his definition as “Universal Information,” abbreviated as UI (p. 18), to avoid ambiguity or misunderstanding.

Gitt’s (2023) UI has four components:

1. Symbolically encoded – The message uses symbols (e.g., words, numbers).
2. Abstractly represented – Goes beyond physical forms; meaning is not tied to medium.
3. Oriented towards action – Delivers instructions for performing specific tasks or responses.
4. Directed by purpose – Includes the purpose or objective of the message (p. 86).

Gitt’s (2023) first three elements align closely with Díaz Nafría’s (2010) dimensions. Gitt’s (2023) first component, “symbolically encoded,” refers to the way information is represented using symbols—such as letters, numbers, or genetic codes—rather than the actual things themselves (p. 43). Similar to Díaz Nafría’s (2010) syntactic dimension, in the context of a stop sign, Gitt’s (2023) symbolically encoded component implies that it contains encoded symbols intended for a receiver to decode (p. 43). Similarly, a call number like SB1.A65 I55 2010 combines letters and numbers to represent specific details about a book, such as its subject, author, and publication date. While each part within the call number carries a particular meaning, Gitt’s focus is on the symbols used to encode information according to agreed-upon rules, which are then decoded by a receiver.

Gitt’s (2023) second element of UI includes abstract representation as a symbol or sign that carries meaning beyond its physical form, which he refers to as semantics (p. 91). For example, a red stop sign is more than just a red octagon—it is an abstract representation that conveys the meaning “stop,” which drivers understand through shared knowledge and conventions. Semantics is the bridge that connects those abstract symbols to their meaning. Without this semantic layer, the stop sign’s shape and color would be meaningless marks. Gitt emphasizes that both the creation and interpretation of meaning require intelligence, making the semantic level crucial for information to have purpose and be understood within UI. Similarly, Díaz Nafría (2010) notes that when given information, an individual automatically looks for meaning and context, in other words, its semantic domain (p. 84). In the example of the Library of Congress call number stated above, patrons do not merely gaze at it; they strive to understand its meaning. Because one uses the Library of Congress call number in a specific arena (a library), this context allows the patron to know that a call number — a coded form of alphanumeric characters — represents the book’s identity and essential information; it conveys meaning without directly describing the book itself.

Gitt’s (2023) third dimension is pragmatic (p. 62). This bears striking similarities to Díaz Nafría’s (2010) third category, which bears the same label. Both Díaz Nafría (2010) and Gitt (2023) note that information is always presented with some kind of response. In the context of the stop sign, the pragmatic component (in most contexts) is fairly straightforward: STOP! Similar to how a driver who sees a stop sign should not simply ignore it and plow through the intersection, a library patron given a call number for a book with the title, The International Dimension of the American Society of Agronomy, is not expected to just leave the library or to crumple up the paper upon which the call number was written and throw it away. Such action would be vulgar. Instead, the call number acts as a guide or address that helps the patron locate the specific book within the library collection. At a minimum, one expects the patron will go to the book’s location and retrieve it. Alternatively, if in a hurry, the patron may write the call number somewhere to prevent it from being misplaced, explaining their apparent rudeness and indicating their intention to attend to it later.

Thus, while both theorists emphasize the pragmatic expectation of a prompt response, Gitt advances the discussion by questioning the response’s ultimate purpose. In doing so, he develops information’s fourth component: apobetics. The apobetic domain “refers to the intended goal, the purpose, that the sender wishes to achieve” (Gitt, 2023, p. 68). Gitt (2023) argues that this component is critical because the individual sending information does so for a purpose (p. 68). Gitt develops apobetics constructively by asking: “For what purpose has this information been sent?” Gitt’s UI demands that the call number has a purpose (cf. Puddefoot, 1992, pp. 15, 19–20). For example, in this context, the librarian provides the book’s call number to help the patron locate it for their research.

The apobetic domain comes into play with Library of Congress call numbers because by following its protocol, books on similar topics will be nearby. The Library of Congress’s classification is based on the assumption (valid in many cases) that a person looking for a work will be interested in other works on similar topics. Subsequently, the call number system orders the library’s holdings, placing works by topic and directing researchers and readers to sections related to the information they seek. Aligning with Gitt’s apobetic domain, the structure undergirding the Library of Congress call numbers enables creative engagement by enabling connections, comparisons, and syntheses of texts on similar topics. The Library of Congress call number also exemplifies Puddefoot’s (1992) claim: information reveals its true nature and purpose only when situated within a broader, meaning-bearing context (pp. 22–23). Just as divine information in God’s Word orders creation, sustains possibility, and makes relationship and creativity possible (Puddefoot, 1992, pp. 10–11, 14–15, 22–23), so the humble call number, meaningless on its own, becomes an instrument of order, direction, and meaning when embedded in the dynamic system of the library and utilized by the patron. For faithful librarians, information always has purpose, never incidental, but integral—rooted in creation and reflecting divine intentionality at every level of meaning (cf. Puddefoot, 1992).

As noted earlier, covenant epistemology suggests that knowledge has two parts: listening to trusted authorities and following their instructions, so that the learner can rightly perceive and inhabit what is being disclosed (cf. Johnson, 2015, loc. 481). Gitt’s definition eloquently aligns by implying that information cannot simply be left at a syntactic (that we understand it) or pragmatic (that we know what to do) level; individuals involved in information exchanges must also embrace the apobetic component (understand why such an exchange is taking place). Understanding the crucial role of Gitt’s (2023) apobetic domain emphasizes the intended goal of information: not merely to transmit signals but to create the conditions under which meaning and coordinated understanding—critical for transformation—can occur (cf. Main, 2024; Patrontasch, 2025; van Ruler, 2018). Subsequently, Gitt’s apobetic domain of information creates a fertile soil upon which knowledge (i.e., perceiving and inhabiting what is being disclosed) can flourish.

While Díaz Nafría’s (2010) and Gitt’s (2023) discussions correspond well, a vast amount of LIS literature also aligns eloquently with Gitt’s definition. In her article “Fundamental Forms of Information,” Marcia Bates (2006) addresses the ambiguity surrounding the ways people define information by proposing a foundational understanding: information is “the pattern of organization of matter and energy” (p. 1033). Bates’s (2006) definition fits into Gitt’s syntactic frame, emphasizing structure and arrangement, but lacking meaning (p. 1041). Similarly, in his essay, “Theorizing Information for Information Science,” Ian Cornelius (2002) notes how information arises only in a context with incomplete knowledge (p. 403), aligning with both the semantic and pragmatic dimensions, stressing information’s functional role in reducing uncertainty and driving purposeful engagement with knowledge. In his article, “Information as Thing,” Michael Buckland (1991) concisely differentiates between “information-as-thing” (p. 353) and “information-as-knowledge” (p. 351), mapping onto the syntactic (material representations) and semantic (meaningful content) frames, with his emphasis on information’s capacity to facilitate transformation reflecting the pragmatic dimension. Finally, Allan Pratt (1977) conceptualizes information as an event shaping an individual’s internal image of reality. This situates his work firmly within the pragmatic frame, while also implying apobetic considerations by underscoring information’s role as a transformative agent (pp 208, 215). As Table 1 below indicates, these interpretations demonstrate how diverse definitions of information can be coherently situated within Gitt’s framework, highlighting its potential for integrating other existing or emerging definitions. Subsequently, Gitt’s four frames provide a structured approach for understanding the multifaceted nature of information across disciplines and epistemologies.

Framework	Syntax	Semantic	Pragmatic	Apobetic
Gitt (2023)	✓	✓	✓	✓
Díaz Nafría (2010)	✓	✓	✓
Bates (2006)	✓
Cornelius (2002)		✓	✓
Buckland (1991)	✓	✓	✓
Pratt (1977)			✓	✓

Table 1

Despite information’s ambiguous nature, Gitt’s (2023) UI provides a working definition aligning with the literature: “… a symbolically encoded, abstractly represented message conveying the expected action(s) and the intended purpose(s). In this context, ‘message’ is meant to include instructions for carrying out a specific task or eliciting a specific response” (p. 86). The question still remains: “So what?” The following entry on this topic will examine how this definition might influence the practices of faithful librarians.

References

Bates, M. J. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 57(8), 1033–1045. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20369

Belkin, N. J. (1975). Towards a definition of information for informatics. In V. Horsnell (Ed.), Informatics 2: Proceedings of a conference held by the Aslib Co-ordinate Indexing Group on 25-27 March 1974 at New College, Oxford (pp. 50–56). ASLIB.

Buckland, M. K. (1991). Information as thing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199106)42:5%3C351::AID-ASI5%3E3.0.CO;2-3

Capurro, R., & Hjørland, B. (2003). The concept of information. In Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 37, pp. 343–411). Information Today. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440370109

Cornelius, I. (2002). Theorizing information for information science. In Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 36, pp. 393–425). Information Today. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440360110

Díaz Nafría, J. M. (2010). What is information? A multidimensional concern. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism, and Critique, 8(1), 77–108. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v8i1.76

Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information (1st MIT Press ed.). MIT Press.

Floridi, L. (2005). Is semantic information meaningful data? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70(2), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2005.tb00531.x

Gabor, D. (1953). A summary of communication theory. In W. Jackson (Ed.), Communication theory (pp. 1–24). Butterworths.

Gitt, W. (2023). Information: The key to life. Master Books.

Jones, W. (2010). No knowledge but through information. First Monday, 15(9). https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3062/2600

Machlup, F. (1962). The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States. Princeton University Press. http://www.archive.org/details/productiondistri00mach

Main, P. (2024, February 6). Communication theories. https://www.structural-learning.com/post/communication-theories

Meek, E. L. (2011). Loving to know: Introducing covenant epistemology. Cascade Books.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.

Patrontasch, A. B. (2025, May 16). Communication theory powers Shyft’s core research features. https://www.myshyft.com/blog/communication-theory-application/

Pratt, A. D. (1977). The information of the image: A model of the communications process. Libri, 27, 204–220. https://doi.org/10.1515/libr.1977.27.1.204

Puddefoot, J. C. (1992). Information and creation. In C. Wassermann, R. Kirby, & B. Rordorf (Eds.), The science and theology of information: Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Science and Theology, Geneva, March 29 to April 1, 1990 (pp. 7–25). Labor et Fides.

Qvortrup, L. (1993). The controversy over the concept of information: An overview and a selected and annotated bibliography. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 1(4), 3–24.

van Ruler, B. (2018). Communication theory: An underrated pillar on which strategic communication rests. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4), 367–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1452240