By implication and expectation, handbooks are hefty. At 901 pages, sturdily bound, this one certainly is. “Information, knowledge, documents, and their users are research objects of Information Science, which is the science as well as technology dealing with the representation and retrieval of information—including the environment of said information (society, a certain enterprise, or an individual user, amongst others). … This Handbook focuses on the fundamental disciplines of information science, namely, information retrieval, knowledge representation, and informetrics.” “Information Science studies the representation, storage and supply as well as the search for and retrieval of relevant (predominantly digital) documents and knowledge (including environment of information).” Certainly, a quarrel could be made of these definitions of information science, and by implication even more so of the conception of inclusions and exclusions that follow, but, then, as important as they are, definitions by themselves do not make any field. However, definitions are to be expected in a handbook. This Handbook did not disappoint: numerous other definitions of a range of concepts are included in various parts of the book. Overall, the Handbook is well organized. Chapters (called parts) are consistently and well laid out. Each part starts with a discussion of the given research area, followed by a selection of important results and ending with conclusions, neatly summarizing main points and findings. Histories of concepts and efforts are included. Each part also has a full bibliography. No large, unified bibliography is provided at the end; yes, it would be long, but it would be nice to have everything in one place. However, a detailed, good index of names helps, and so does an excellent subject index. The last part (Part Q. Glossary and Indexes) has a wide-ranging glossary and lists of abbreviations, tables, figures, and mentioned indexes. This part is comprehensive, at 71 pages, making searching, finding, and navigation easy. In addition to the Introduction, The Handbook has two major sections: Information Retrieval and Knowledge Representation (they are not labeled generically, so I am calling them sections). Information Retrieval covers seven parts: Propaedeutics of Information Retrieval (basic topics); Boolean Retrieval Systems; Classic Retrieval Models; Web Information Retrieval; Special Problems in Information Retrieval; and Empirical Investigations on Information Retrieval. The Knowledge Representation Section covers eight parts: Propadeutics of Knowledge Representation; Metadata; Folksonomies; Knowledge Organization Systems; Text Oriented Knowledge Organization Methods; Indexing; Summarization; and Empirical Investigation on Knowledge Organization. This table of content also shows the way in which the authors divided or grouped the field of information science. Of course, any field can be grouped in different ways, but this grouping is a bit unorthodox; similar organization cannot be found in standard information science texts and journals. The working definition by the authors, cited above, uses description of relevant documents and knowledge as being (in their words) “predominantly digital.” In fact, the book covers many concepts and constructs that are not digital at all, as in Metadata (part J); Knowledge Organization Systems (part L); Indexing (part N), and others. This brings us to a division of the field. Over the years, information science has branched out and then split into two distinct areas of concentration: one that concentrates more on systems aspects and algorithms and the other that concentrates more on users and use. Research and education efforts of the former are associated with computer science and the latter with library science. They differ considerably. A while ago, they cooperated and communicated well; nowadays they do not. They are almost completely separated. The Handbook covers both orientations but is much more oriented toward the system than the user end of information science. Still, members interested either in the computer end or in the library end of information science will find plenty to explore and learn. By definition, a handbook is a guide that is kept constantly at hand for consultation. This book can certainly serve this function quite well. Different parts and subparts can be consulted independently of each other. The authors did not shy away from their own interpretations and evaluations. Conclusions from each part can also be read on their own. The bibliography of different parts is selective, covering major contributions. The primary audiences for this Handbook are students, scholars, and practitioners in information science, computer science, and library science as well as those in any field interested in information. In fact, one can pick and choose almost at random and learn, confirm, or refresh something. Or argue back. Overall, in its depth, this is an impressive book. Quite evidently, a great deal of effort was taken to put it together. But a larger question for all handbooks in any field looms: in this day and age, with information of all kinds widely accessible online, are printed handbooks becoming superfluous? Or even an anachronism? Probably not, but the case is harder and harder to make.

Everybody knows what relevance is. It is a "ya'know" notion, concept, idea–no need to explain whatsoever. Searching for relevant information using information technology (IT) became a ubiquitous activ

Relevance is a fundamental notion in information science. The aim of this paper is to provide a perspective on two large questions, the first historical the second contemporary: (1) Why did relevance become a central notion of information science? (2) In this day and age of huge advances in information technology, why did relevance still remain a central notion? In the 1950s, relevance emerged as a central notion in information science because of ex- tensive theoretical and practical concerns with and commitments to searching and not only with organization of information. In turn, searching was con- nected to and made possible by many innovations in computers and compu- ting. Contemporary advances in information technology brought about great many changes. Search engines, social media, and a myriad of new informa- tion resources emerged and transformed the world. Searching for information

While acknowledging that efforts in information literacy are a global, the paper concentrates on information literacy efforts in the USA. The American Library Association (ALA) issued in year 2000 a set of standards that provided a framework for assessing the information literate individual. By 2013 it was realized that many changes require an update and even new approaches to information literacy. At the start of 2014 ALA proposed an initial draft of a new framework for information literacy for higher education. A new definition of information literacy was offered, together with a new framework based on threshold concepts– critically reviewed in the paper. During 2014 several public debates were conducted; the new framework is scheduled to be finalized in 2015. The paper summarizes these debates, with particular emphasis of description and critiques of threshold concept, which is at the core of the new framework.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of ethical concerns related to professional information searching from both a historical and contemporary point of view. Basic ethical questions and issues for searchers are formulated. A suggestion is made that a set of ethical guidelines for online searchers formulated a quarter century ago could be used, with some revision, even today. It is also suggested that "first do no harm" be the primary ethical principle for searchers. Following this a number of ethical guidelines for searchers and searching are formulated. Conclusions stress the importance of ethical consideration in searching.

Se proporciona una revisión de los problemas éticos relacionados con la búsqueda profesional de información tanto desde un punto de visto histórico como actual. Se formulan las cuestiones éticas básicas a las que se enfrentan los profesionales de la recuperación de la información. Se sugiere que el conjunto de recomendaciones éticas para búsquedas de información en línea que se elaboraron hace un cuarto de siglo pueden ser usadas, con las necesarias actualizaciones, también en el presente. A partir de ellas, se presenta y desarrolla un conjunto de recomendaciones éticas para los recuperadores de información y los procesos de búsqueda. Las conclusiones enfatizan la importancia de las consideraciones éticas en la búsqueda.

The Libraries in Digital Age (LIDA) conference, held annually in Dubrovnik, Croatia, starting in 2000 and moving to Zadar, Croatia in 2009, had two significant precursors. The earlier one was a series of conferences organized at the Interuniversity Center in Dubrovnik by Prof. Bozo Tezak (1907-1980). These conferences, held in 1977, 1979 and 1980, had a general title “Universities in World Network of Information and Communication” and attracted an international audience. Among the issues raised in presentation and lively discussions were effects of technology on libraries and universities. Digital libraries were not around then, but the subject of libraries, technologies and networks was very much present. The later precursor was the Third International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (COLIS 3) held in May 1999, also in Dubrovnik, Croatia. Conference chairs were Peter Ingwersen, Denmark, Tatjana Aparac-Jelusic, Croatia, and Pertti Vakkari, Finland; program chair was Tefko Saracevic of the United States. The theme of the conference was digital libraries; papers and discussions covered a wide range of related issues and topics. Out of this experience came the idea to hold conferences specifically oriented toward a variety of contemporary topics related to libraries in the digital age – not only digital libraries. Consequently, the first LIDA conference was organized in 2000 drawing heavily from the legacy of these prior efforts. The purpose formulated then still holds today: “[T]o address the changing and challenging environment for libraries and information systems and services in the digital world.” While the purpose is constant, topics have changed every year. Directors for all the LIDA conferences have been Tatjana Aparac-Jelusic and Tefko Saracevic, while program chairs have changed every year depending on the topic chosen.

As a process, information interaction is (fairly) well defined; considerable amount of research is devoted to the topic in various areas, particularly in human information behavior and human-computer interaction. In contrast the notion of "context" in which this interaction takes place is ill or not defined and rarely researched -- mostly it is taken as a primitive term. Paul Watzlawick (1921-2007) facing a similar issue as to the notion of "communication" formulated five axioms in his theory of communication; the most famous is the first axiom: "One Cannot Not Communicate (Man kann nicht nicht kommunizieren)." [1]. Directly following Watzlawick's axioms, this address is an attempt to formulate five axioms related to "context" in information interaction. We start with an assumption that information interaction involves two distinct parties: an information system on the one hand, and an information user (or group of users) on the other hand. Systems and users are partners in interaction. Both have a context, but since there is no interaction without a user (or group), we concentrate here mostly with the user side of the context. Axiom 1: One cannot not have a context in information interaction. Every interaction is conducted within a context. Because context-less information interaction is impossible, it is not possible not to have a context. Axiom 2: Every interaction has a content and relationship aspect -- context is the later and classifies the former. It means that all interactions, apart from information derived from meaning of words or terms describing the content, have more information to be derived from context. Axiom 3: The nature of information interaction is asymmetric; it involves differing processes and interpretation by parties involved. Contexts are asymmetric as well. Systems context is primarily about meanings; user context is primarily about situations. Axiom 4: Context is multilayered. It extends beyond users or systems. In interactions it is customary to consider direct context, but context extends indirectly to broader social context also. Axiom 5: Context is not self-revealing, nor is it self-evident. Context may be difficult to formulate and synthesize. But plenty can go wrong when not taken into consideration in interactions. The problem of context is determining the conditions and circumstances that are relevant to a given information interaction; with this, the notion of information interaction context is connected with the notion of relevance in information science.

The EU i2010 policy framework to build the European Information Society has positioned digital libraries as a critical component for its realization. The i2010 Digital Libraries initiative sets out to make all Europe’s cultural resources and scientific records – books, journals, films, maps, photographs, music, etc. – accessible to all, and preserve it for future generations. In the US, digital libraries have been indicated as a critical component in the long-term realization of the promise of cyberinfrastructure, as tools that will change how science and humanities research is organized, stored, disseminated, and curated (Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure). Since the advent of digital libraries in the early nineties, a consistent focus of DL research and development, beyond Computer Science, has been the application of DLs in educational contexts. Many projects have explored how best to teach WITH digital libraries, but only more recently has research been conducted on the best way to teach ABOUT digital libraries.

The main objective of information retrieval (IR) systems is to retrieve information or information objects relevant to user requests and possible needs. In IR tests, retrieval effectiveness is established by comparing IR systems retrievals (systems relevance) with users’ or user surrogates’ assessments (user relevance), where user relevance is treated as the gold standard for performance evaluation. Relevance is a human notion, and establishing relevance by humans is fraught with a number of problems—inconsistency in judgment being one of them. The aim of this critical review is to explore the relationship between relevance on the one hand and testing of IR systems and procedures on the other. Critics of IR tests raised the issue of validity of the IR tests because they were based on relevance judgments that are inconsistent. This review traces and synthesizes experimental studies dealing with (1) inconsistency of relevance judgments by people, (2) effects of such inconsistency on results of IR tests and (3) reasons for retrieval failures. A historical context for these studies and for IR testing is provided including an assessment of Lancaster’s (1969) evaluation of MEDLARS and its unique place in the history of IR evaluation.