And here are three observations as follows: When it comes to knowledge, unlike information, it's beliefs and commitments. Knowledge is a function of a position, perspective or specific intent. Knowledge, unlike information, is action. Knowledge, like information, meaning is dependent on specific contexts and relationships. In his Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1999) assume the traditional definition of knowledge that you are considered a justified true belief, however, clarified that although traditional epistemology emphasizes the abstract nature, static and non-human knowledge, typically expressed in propositions and formal logic, knowledge is a dynamic human process of justifying personal belief in pursuit of truth.
As a result, both information and knowledge are elements of context-specific and are relational, because they depend on the situation and are dynamically created in social interaction of individuals, on the other hand, when interacting in a social and historical context people share information with which to build a social knowledge that makes up a reality and this, in turn, influences their judgments, their behavior and attitude, (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1999). From this perspective, it is important to recognize that information is one of the epistemological reference for the construction of knowledge, it will add the creativity and thought processes, as well as other information from the context that is not organized or split the experiences and perceptions. For there to be knowledge must combine three factors: information, experience and interaction with the context. It's not just the ability to relate in a highly structured, data, information and knowledge of a particular object.