Abstract
An argument can be made that the whole of modern computing, including information systems, depends on the discovery that knowledge, as in applied logic, can take on a machine form that guides action by the machine (see Hodges in Alan Turing: the enigma. Penguin Random House, London, 2012). Denning and Martell in Great principles of computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2015), in attempting to identify important principles that underpin computing as a whole, claim that we still have hardly come to grips with the implications of information (knowledge) becoming action in a machine. Thus, the aim of this speculative chapter is to explore knowledge-action structures in computing related disciplines. Approaches to knowledge-action structures reviewed include those from data and process modelling and from artificial intelligence. It can be seen that divergent ontological positions underlie different approaches. An open question remains. Can these different positions co-exist, as in Wittgenstein’s language games? Or is there a need for some unifying framework, as Russell and Norvig in Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. international edition (2002) argue is necessary in a demanding domain?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aguilar-Savén, R. S. (2004). Business process modelling: Review and framework. International Journal of Production Economics, 90(2), 129–149.
Becker, J., Kugeler, M., & Rosemann, M. (2013). Process management: A guide for the design of business processes. Springer Science & Business Media.
Bunge, M. (1967). Scientific Research II (Vol. 3/2). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Burton-Jones, A., Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P., & Weber, R. (2017). Assessing representation theory with a framework for pursuing success and failure. MIS Quarterly, 41(4).
Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Galliers, R., Henfridsson, O., Newell, S., & Vidgen, R. (2014). The sociomateriality of information systems: Current status, future directions. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 809–830.
Chandra, L., Seidel, S., & Gregor, S. (2015). Prescriptive knowledge in IS research: Conceptualizing design principles in terms of materiality, action, and boundary conditions. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 4039–4048).
Connolly, T., Begg, C., & Holowczak, R. (2008). Business database systems. Pearson Education.
Denning, P. J., & Martell, C. (2015). Great principles of computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Eriksson, O., Johannesson, P., & Bergholtz, M. (2018). Institutional ontology for conceptual modeling. Journal of Information Technology, 1–19.
Gehlert, A., Pfeiffer, D., & Becker, J. (2007). The BWW-model as method engineering theory. In Proceedings of the 13th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2007).
Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action: Reason and rationalization of society (p. 1). Boston: Beacon Press.
Hodges, A. (2012). Alan turing: The enigma the book that inspired the film the imitation game - updated edition. Princeton University Press.
Knight, W. (2017). The dark secret at the heart of AI. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved September 16, 2018 from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604087/the-dark-secret-at-the-heart-of-ai/.
Niles, I., & Pease, A. (2001). Towards a standard upper ontology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems-FOIS 2001 (pp. 2–9).
Orlikowski, W., & Scott, S. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.
Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2002). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. International edition. https://doi.org/10.1016/0925-2312(95)90020-9.
Segerberg, K., Meyer, J.-J., & Kracht, M. (2016). The logic of action. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/logic-action.
Shneiderman, B. (2010). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Pearson Education India.
Singh, M. P. (2000). A social semantics for agent communication languages. Issues in agent communication. Heidelberg: Springer.
Sowa, J. F. (2000). Knowledge representation: Logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Van der Aalst, W., & Van Hee, K. (2002). Workflow management: Models, methods, and systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1993). Research commentary: Information systems and conceptual modeling—a research agenda. Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.4.363.69.
Weber, R. (1997). Ontological foundations of information systems. Melbourne: Coopers & Lybrand Accounting Research Methodology Monograph No. 4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gregor, S. (2019). Knowledge-Action Structures. In: Bergener, K., Räckers, M., Stein, A. (eds) The Art of Structuring. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06234-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06234-7_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-06233-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-06234-7
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)