Information is an amorphous concept and it is taken differently by different stream of people. However there are two types of information - 1. individual information and 2. social (subject) information.

Individual information means information concerned to personal use i.e. where have I planned to go tomorrow, what are my favorites etc. But subject information is concerned to all the people in that field i.e. how genes are responsible for transcription and translation - are valuable to all people in life sciences.

I think that information scientists are interested in the second type of information. Librarians also study information science as information is more important than information sources at present.

I know that it is not to-the-point answer to your question. But I expressed that I know in my way.

It is multidisciplinary subject and a few important definitions of information science are:

“Information science is that discipline that investigates the properties and behavior of information, the forces governing the flow of information, and the means of processing information for optimum accessibility and usability. It is concerned with the body of knowledge relating to the origination, collection, organization, storage, retrieval, interpretation, transmission, and utilization of information.”  — Borko, H. (1968). Information science: What is it? American Documentation, 19, 3.

 “… information science brings together and uses the theories, principles, techniques and technologies of a variety of disciplines toward the solution of information problems.  Among the disciplines brought together in this amalgam called information science are computer sciences, cognitive science, psychology, mathematics, logic, information theory, electronics, communications, linguistics, economics, classification science, systems science, library science and management science.  They are brought to bear in solving the problems with information — its generation, organization, representation, processing, distribution, communication and use.”  — Williams, M. E. (1987/1988). Defining information science and the role of ASIS.Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 14(2), 17-19.

 “Information science is the science and practice dealing with the effective collection, storage, retrieval, and use of information. It is concerned with recordable information and knowledge, and the technologies and related services that facilitate their management and use. More specifically, information science is a field of professional practice and scientific inquiry addressing the effective communication of information and information objects, particularly knowledge records, among humans in the context of social, organizational, and individual need for and use of information. The domain of information science is the transmission of the universe of human knowledge in recorded form, centering on manipulation (representation, organization, and retrieval) of information, rather than knowing information.”  — Saracevic, T. (2009). Information science. In M. J. Bates (Ed.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (3rd ed.) (pp. 2570-2585). New York: Taylor and Francis.

As I know it is only one area /subject and there are no several Information Sciences.

As Rekha Mishra said, I. science and I. theory are perceived as two different fields.  Let me add that these, as other terms like I. technology and Informatics, are not so sharply distinguished from one another.  Naïve translations of such terms are likely to change their meaning dramatically.

The mathematical and most of all physical concepts of information are not so firmly established as well.  Such apparent conflation attests the magnitude of the ongoing transformation, comparable to the invention of writing.  Classifications are doomed.  Names may last, if meaningfully chosen.  I'd suggest to use focused terms, e.g. "human", while trying to avoid overloaded ones.

Information is data to which meaning has been attached by practical or theoretical assignment. It is as subjective as the meanings assigned and is only objective as far as similarity or commonality of purpose and data make it with other applications.

Is there just one or several Information Sciences. If several, how are they classified?

I would like to add a few comments to my original question to specify in a more refined context the scope of my inquiry on the concept of the term 'information'. As you certainly are aware of, ResearchGate is the main internet social site providing information directly from producers. It supplies a live review of online literature. Formal literature review was compared recently as "ongoing conversations among those who do the work of scholarship". Until recently, literature review was a long and painstaking search for information from sources scattered in time and space. Now the search is made at home on your internet station.

Here, such a dialog started with three distinguished specialists. We are grateful to Brabhat Ranjan (discerning between individual and social information); Chennupati Kodand (with classic definitions of information science); and Rekha Mishra (warning on the challenges of information science as an interscience). And more recently, we heard from Alessandro Vesely and Trevor Gadd. To them I am also grateful. We will continue this dialog to get a specific definition of information adopted by individual researchers.

From over three thousand references we have retrieved from Google and from a private library, a selection of 395 hopefully deals with information as recorded knowledge. From these, we are selecting for analysis around a hundred by the most productive authors. Following up this dialog, it is expected to discover:

(1) the specific concept of information researchers on a single science of information adopt in their teachings and investigations; beyond that,

(2) the different types of concepts of information adopted by those who support a general view of information sciences, instead of just an information science.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

“Information science is that discipline that investigates the properties and behavior of information, the forces governing the flow of information, and the means of processing information for optimum accessibility and usability. It is concerned with the body of knowledge relating to the origination, collection, organization, storage, retrieval, interpretation, transmission, and utilization of information.”  — Borko, H. (1968).

This is correct, but this is a very comprehensive description. In my country (Croatia), we have formally "Computer Sciences" and "Information and Communication Sciences". Formally, nobody says what is the difference; practically, I say that "Computer Sciences" deal "with how machines & systems are constructed and work", and "Information Sciences" deal with "how machines & systems are used".

Anyway, things are not defined precisely. I graduated Computer Sciences, and made a PhD in computer programming, which then ended in "Information Sciences", for irrelevant administrative reasons. And so, I became a professor of Information Sciences, although I teach computer networks and computer programming, which belongs to Computer Sciences. But this has no practical effects on my position; nobody pays much attentions to such things here.

Anyway, "Information Science(s)" cannot be reduced to any specific topic. The question about singular and plural is general. What about medicine? Is there one Medicine or many? All such concepts are very general, so that you can always use plural, but you do not need to.

It's realy not possible to describe a science like Information Science by different details.

The name is valid since 1986 (H. BORKO).

I think today we use the term Information as kernel for this science. The single branches are too manifold.

Article Axioms around the term Information

Dear researchers in Information Science:

Under my supervision, Mara Cristina Salles Correia is concluding her PhD dissertation in Information Science on the concept of ‘information’ for Information Science. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 4, no. 9 (2015): 13-39 has published our preliminary article Information as Recorded Knowledge. After this, we contacted the 15 authors on this theme, who have had their works cited 10 or more times in our literary review. A few of them have replied with rich and generous contributions. Others cooperated by posting their relevant works at ResearchGate. We are very grateful to them all. We also e-mailed this article to our colleagues and professors, especially those in Brazil. Almost everyone replied promptly with a kind praise. However, only around six of them have offered comments and criticism. On the other hand, our article has not received so far any revision or reply. This publication on paper at Social Epistemology is a requirement for Mara’s dissertation conclusion.

o   Why is it that this hard work of ours does not deserve the attention of the scientific community in this area?

o   Is it not qualified for publication?

o   What are its faults for not being worthy of your attention?

o   Is it not entitled to a sincere and direct criticism for its improvement and ensuing publication on paper?

This is now a challenge to all my peers. If you feel that this article does not deserve your attention for its poor quality, please, state this frankly! Scientific research will not ever advance just by being acclaimed. Scientific knowledge progresses only through hard work and deep unreserved criticism by peers.  Nowadays, this can be easily done through SERRC and ResearchGate, leading-edge tools for the communication and review of research at the scientific community. Please, we need your comments and corrections, for which we thank you in advance.

Dear students and researchers on Information Science:

We received four very relevant questions from a scientist, whose name we lost due to a computer failure. Even so, we thankfully try to reply them here. Before asking the questions, the following extract from “Information as Recorded Knowledge” abstract was cited: "This article proposes to expand upon this definition of information applying the Aristotelian concept of matter (graphic records) combined with substantial form (content), so that this combination defines information substance as the object of information science, allowing for the retrieval of meaning by the process of reading."

Why are you only proposing, and not doing?

This article was a product required for Mara’s PhD qualifying examination. Her research proposes that the growth of a science of information depends on the delimitation of its real scope. At the beginning, we verified that the study and research in this area employ the term “information” in highly ambiguous meanings. We believe it is urgent that the term "information" is employed only univocally to represent the object of Information Science. Therefore, we see “information” as a substance composed of matter (graphic records) combined with form from which meaning can be retrieved and communicated for use. As our research progresses we are being convinced that many other analogical meanings are employed, creating several Information Sciences. In our article, we demonstrate the univocity of the term “information” as the object of Information Science through Aristotle’s Metamorphosis and Popper’s Theory of Three Worlds. We are now adding Elias’ Theory of Symbols, and Ranganathan concept of “information”. If any other action is required in this work, we will be glad to hear of them.

Why is this work important?

We believe this work will give Information Science educators and researchers guidance for them to work into the restricted scope of an original and univocal Information Science. Other Information Sciences should be left to the researchers in the fields they find natural organized structures they call “information” in analogical meaning. We even believe these other Information Sciences should be named as “Information Theories”. However, this situation is presently hardly reversible, since these other Information Sciences have been developed inside stronger natural, social and human sciences.

How does one "read" graphics?

From reading the “Book of Nature” to reading an e-book there is a variety of “readings”. It is essential that “reading” here is taken as the ability to interpret a sequence of traces humans “write” on a physical support to preserve memory. Computers also can “read”, but they do this as mediators between man and physical record. Jesse Shera gave a reply to this question by setting up the general notion of “graphic record”:

1.      The book, or graphic record, by which is meant any physical entity upon which is recorded a transcript of human experience, is, and must remain, the central concept of an acceptable theory of librarianship. The role of the library is defined in the origins of the word itself and is subject to modification only to the extent that time has added to the book other media of graphic communication. Thus the fundamental theory of librarianship must recognize the library as an agency of secondary or indirect communication, and the role of the librarian in society as that of a mediator between man and his graphic records. (The foundations of Education for Librarianship, p. 193).

Why are you ignoring audio and video records?

From our reply as above we can see that there is no limit to the vicarious functions of the “book”. We did not go into these singularities. We take it for granted that our eventual audience is aware of the documentation developments. Ranganathan, for instance, states that any two dimensional document is a graphic record. There are even those that follow on the steps of Suzanne Briet by asserting that living elephants, classified in a zoo, are documents! We have been asked already if a conversation can be information. We are convinced that spoken utterances are also information. For instance, if a tourist asks you: --- “What’s the name of this fruit?” --- “Oh! That’s an avocado”. That is information in the short time while it is asked and replied. Therefore, it is volatile information that disappears if not recorded on a document.

So volatile information is still information, even though it may be matter-free.  Consider interplanetary broadcast transmissions, which may last years, for example.  I agree that a graphic record requires matter, but I'd consider it memory; that is, information storage.  The difference may become relevant when you investigate inner functioning of readings and writings.

Very abstract I like to combine all Information Sciences around the word and term Information. It is known since Romans and was discussed all centuries since that time. Most famous Philosophers thought about it: Augustinus or Thomas from Aquin (see R.Capurro). In Physics Shannon defined his Information Theory. His narrow mathematical and physical definition created finally this new branch "Information Science". I like to speak from one science around the term Information but the American Origin was defined in plural => Borko, H. (1968).  

For my scientific purposes I dared to define "Information scientific Axioms". I took the term axioms because the importance of the word Information today is a nature scientific and physical fact.  As result of my researches over decades I found the necessary relation to Human Being. 

As direct answer to your question: a) Information is more then "knowledge", b) can't classify Information Science. I see it a little but deeper in range - but soon after religion and philosophy. Information - in one unified definition - can be seen as all what it "interesting for the human mind". Every exacter definition makes no sense.  =>

http://www.plbg.at/Werke/english/Orientation%20of%20IT%20towards%20Human%20Being%20-%20the%20Paradigm%20(2016).pdf

I agree with Chennupati Ramaiah .. Information Science, like most sciences, is multi-disciplined. "Theory" is ambiguous. Pure and applied mathematics sometimes fail to occupy the same space at the same time; theories of mathematics? I consider theory to be theory and application to be application. Discovery is founded on theory, serendipity, experimentation and study. Advancement is based on accurate assessment, deployment and documentation of discovery. Call disciplines what they are - disciplines. Language processing can be a discipline within Information Science, Computer Science, Experimental Psychology, Linguistics and other sciences.

The word and term as kernel of Information Science or Sciences is a broad used word in actual Human society. It's importance is like the word "air" or ""water" - it has to be abstracted in a unified way before underlining special branches - which use the term. 

So empiric researches brought some results. The usage of the word "Information" founded a new very abstract - realistic - paradigm. Axioms where defined and they seam to be valid for next decades of Information Science.     

http://www.plbg.at/humanorientierung.aspx

My masters thesis is entitled "A taxonomy of Information Literacy" is attached. It addresses your question, from an educational science point of view.