Information professional


#1

This is a proposed new standard glossary term. See this post for background on this review track. To comment on the term below either click the blue “Reply” button at the bottom or select a passage of text in the term and click the “Quote” pop-up to create a comment about that section only.

Short Definition: An individual who is involved in creating, describing, managing, analyzing, or enabling access to or use of information resources.

Extended Definition: An individual who is involved in creating, describing, managing, analyzing, or enabling access to or use of information resources. The individual may be involved directly or indirectly in providing such services or may be contributing to the development or operation of the infrastructure for providing such services.

Synonyms: Information manager, Content manager, Records manager, Digital archivist

Acronym:

Related Terms: http://dictionary.casrai.org/Information_management_specialist

Sources:

Term Lead: Bob Downs


#2

“enabling access to information resources”

We don’t define was an information resource is. It can mean many things to many people. The longer definition actually compounds the issue, as we introduce the concept of indirect involvement. So, if someone works in an office, and their work, in one way or another, directly or indirectly, leads to the creation of what we are calling an information resource, then that person is an information professional? If Bob works on a powerpoint presentation for his boss, is that an information resource? If one performs tasks in their work that involve various types of interactions with information resources are they therefore information professionals? What if they only do it for part of their work. The problem with the definition of information professional (not just here, but in general) is that lots of people are professionals, lots of people work with information to varying extents, and so the title can apply to so many people as to be effectively useless. This may come across as critical or negative, and it is truly not meant in that spirit. I just feel that we need to beware of terms that are so generalized as to lack any real utility.


#3

I would tend to agree with your comments. Further discussion and other points of view are needed, I think, and the case will need to be made for the need for this term.


#4

This topic was automatically closed after 0 minutes. New replies are no longer allowed.


#5

#6

This topic was automatically closed after 0 minutes. New replies are no longer allowed.