| Revision as of 15:42, 2 August 2013 editBrews ohare (talk | contribs)47,831 edits more categories← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:41, 2 August 2013 edit undoBrews ohare (talk | contribs)47,831 edits redirect pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | #REDIRECT ] | ||
| ''For 'concept', see ]'' | |||
| ]] | |||
| In the field of ], the need to discuss and compare ] leads to the idea of a '''conceptualization''', a higher level abstraction for which a given ontology is a very particular ''realization'', possibly only one of many realizations of the 'conceptualization'. Each ontology based upon the same overarching conceptualization is then thought of as engendering a particular ']' that maps the conceptualization into specific elements, or ‘such-and-such’, and their relationships. The 'conceptualization' allows discussion of its various possible implementations. The question then arises as to how to describe the 'conceptualization' in terms that can encompass multiple 'ontological commitments'. This issue has been called the 'Tower of Babel' problem, that is, how can persons used to one ontology talk with others using a different ontology?<ref name=Smith/><ref name=Harmelen/> This problem is easily understood, but a general resolution is not at hand. It can be a 'bottom-up' or a 'top-down' approach, or something in between.<ref name=Alignment/> | |||
| An example of the problems encountered in comparing ontologies is found in translation between human languages. Ostensibly, as all humans live in the same world and have the same physical senses with which to see the world, one might expect to correlate human activity with language and thereby make rules for translation. However, that view is utopian because humans act upon cultural interpretation of their surroundings, and relating two cultures is an entirely different matter than understanding what term in both represents a 'rabbit'.<ref name=Quine/><ref name=Wright/> Some suggest that humans think in 'mentalese', but so far we don't have access to this level of conceptualization.<ref name=Aydede/> | |||
| However, in more artificial situations, such as information systems, the idea of a 'conceptualization' and 'ontological commitment' to various ontologies that realize the 'conceptualization' is possible.<ref name=Guarino/><ref name=Guarino1/> A trivial example of moving conception into a language leading to a variety of ontologies is the expression of a process in ] (a strictly structured form of ordinary language) leading to implementation in several different formal computer languages like ] or ]. The pseudocode makes it easier to understand the instructions and compare implementations, but the formal languages make possible the compilation of the ideas as computer instructions. | |||
| Another example is mathematics, where a very general formulation (the analog of a conceptualization) is illustrated with 'applications' that are more specialized examples. For instance, aspects of a ] can be illustrated using a ] or a ] that introduce interpretations of the 'elements' of the conceptualization and additional relationships between them but preserve the connections required in the ]. | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{reflist |refs= | |||
| <ref name=Alignment> | |||
| In information science, one approach to finding a conceptualization (or avoiding it and using an automated comparison) is called 'ontology alignment' or 'ontology matching'. See for example, {{cite book |title=Ontology Matching |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=qYVpA2t2EtQC&printsec=frontcover |author= Jérôme. Euzenat, Pavel Shvaiko |isbn=3540496122 |year=2007 |publisher=Springer}} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| <ref name=Aydede> | |||
| {{cite web |title=The language of thought hypothesis |author=Murat Aydede |work= The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition) |editor=Edward N. Zalta, ed |url= http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/language-thought/ |date=September 17, 2010}} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| <ref name=Guarino> | |||
| {{cite book |title=Formal Ontology in Information Systems (Proceedings of FOIS '98, Trento, Italy) |author=Nicola Guarino |pages=3 ''ff'' |chapter=Formal Ontology in Information Systems |editor=Nicola Guarino, ed |isbn=978-90-5199-399-8 |year=1998 |publisher=IOS Press |url=http://books.google.ca/books?id=Wf5p3_fUxacC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7}} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| <ref name=Guarino1> | |||
| {{cite journal |title=Formalizing ontological commitments |author=Nicola Guarino, Massimiliano Carrara, Pierdaniele Giaretta |journal=AAAI |volume=94 |pages=560-567 |year=1994 |url=http://www.mit.bme.hu/system/files/oktatas/targyak/7412/Formalizing_Ontological_Commitments.pdf}} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| <ref name=Harmelen> | |||
| {{cite web |title=Ontology mapping: a way out of the medical tower of babel |author=Frank van Harmelen |url=http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/aime05/presentations/Ontology%20Mapping%20A%20Way%20out%20of%20the%20Medical%20Tower%20of%20Babel.pdf}} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| <ref name=Quine> | |||
| {{cite book |title=Word and Object |author=Willard v. O. Quine |url=http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/kk3n/80-300/quine-wo.pdf |year=2013 |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=9780262518314 |edition=New }} Quine raised the issue of translation and ] of translation in a series of books and papers. | |||
| </ref> | |||
| <ref name=Smith> | |||
| {{cite book |chapter= Chapter 11: Ontology |author=Barry Smith |url=http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/ontology_PIC.pdf |title=Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information |publisher=Blackwell |year=2003 |pages=155-166 |editor=Luciano Floridi, ed |isbn=0631229183 }} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| <ref name=Wright> | |||
| {{cite book |chapter=Chapter 16: The indeterminacy of translation |author=Crispin Wright |title= A Companion to the Philosophy of Language |editor=Bob Hale, Crispin Wright, eds |year=1999 |isbn=0631213260 |page=397 |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=sGIU9VirtZEC}} "Quine's contention that translation is indeterminate has been among the most widely discussed and controversial theses in modern analytical philosophy." | |||
| </ref> | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Citizendium|Ontological commitment#Conceptualization}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 16:41, 2 August 2013
Redirect to: