Is Cross-Cultural Interoperability Possible?

IS INTEROPERABILITY POSSIBLE?

Is Cross-cultural Interoperability Possible?

Linguistic and Philosophical Hurdles for a Meta Index

Charles W Hodgin III

Drexel University IS INTEROPERABILITY POSSIBLE? 2

June 13, 2012 IS INTEROPERABILITY POSSIBLE? 3

--Abstract--

Cross-cultural interoperability is a dream of the digital library community that becomes more realizable by the day.

Currently, comprehensive metadata standardization initiated from the top down is seen as the way forward. Yet, instead of narrowing its focus on how to accomplish global interoperability, the community should give more thought to if such a feat is possible from a linguistic point of view and from a philosophical point of view. It is one thing to create a meta index that people around the world can access, and it is quite another for that meta index to enhance accurate, relevant retrieval and maintain a high level of organizational integrity. In this paper, I put forward arguments suggesting that true interoperability, which entails cross-cultural translation and interpretation, is not possible. These are adapted from the works of W.V.O. Quine and Thomas Kuhn. I also provide an argument that, even if one sets the arguments about philosophical possibility aside, the cost of implementing global interoperability via a meta index is too great to bear. Finally, I display the results of a brief search experiment in order to demonstrate difficulties outlined in the paper. IS INTEROPERABILITY POSSIBLE? 4

--Introduction and Scope--

Cross-cultural interoperability is a dream of the digital library community that becomes more realizable by the day. As the technology emerges to facilitate this venture, fervor to bring people and information together, across both cultural and linguistic divides, takes hold. Currently, comprehensive metadata standardization initiated from the top down is seen as the way forward. Yet, instead of narrowing its focus on how to accomplish global interoperability, the community should give more thought to if such a feat is possible from a linguistic point of view and from a philosophical point of view. It is one thing to create a meta index that people around the world can access, and it is quite another for that meta index to enhance accurate, relevant retrieval and maintain a high level of organizational integrity.

In this paper, I put forward arguments suggesting that true interoperability, which entails cross-cultural translation and interpretation, is not possible. I also provide an argument that, even if one sets the arguments about philosophical possibility aside, the cost of implementing global interoperability via a meta index is too great to bear.

These arguments do not necessarily reflect my views, but I believe that the movement toward interoperability must answer them if it is to maintain credibility. The philosophies that support these arguments are not expressed in full and are beyond the scope of this paper. I also do not attempt to prove the logical validity of the arguments for the sake of keeping the focus of the paper as narrow as possible.

--Key Terms--

Before beginning to lay out my argument, I feel it will be useful to make brief preliminary remarks on what

I mean by the word “interoperability.” And, I want to precede that discussion by saying something about standards.

Bower and Roberts (2001) state that “the most basic definition of a standard is a mutually agreed-upon designation that helps ensure a consistent result,” with qualities such as strictness varying among kinds. Classification standards allow libraries to create catalogs and indexes to organize their collections. Referring to digital collections specifically, Bower and Roberts (2001) go on to provide a hierarchy of four benefits of standards: protection the long-term value of data, presentation of a model for creating systems and guidelines, facilitation of institutional sharing, and, finally, improvement of relevant item retrieval. It is interesting that retrieval is mentioned last on the list, buried in the penultimate paragraph of the section, whereas conventional wisdom holds that standard-based IS INTEROPERABILITY POSSIBLE? 5 classification systems, such as metadata or ontologies, primarily function as retrieval aides. Perhaps this ordering gives credence to Boast, Bravo and Srinivasan’s (2007) claim that catalogs and indexes are chiefly management tools and only access tools indirectly (396).

The reason for the above comments will become clearer once interoperability is defined. Here, I will define interoperability somewhat loosely. Interoperability refers to the seamless interchange of information between systems. By “systems” I mean digital library systems. These systems can be a group of local systems sharing a network, systems operating with different parameters or constraints, and even systems separated by the borders of language and culture. The notion of digital library interoperability trades on standardization, since interchange, and also interpretation, of digital objects between systems entails the interchange and interpretation of the object’s classificatory metadata. Successful interchange and interpretation depends on uniform organization and classification; metadata must mean the same thing to one system and its users as it does to another. According to

Solodovnik (2011), to “enhance interoperability in digital information environment[s], different metadata representations need to move towards integrated approaches and this should be based on mechanisms of standardization, normalization and enrichment of metadata schemas” (4663-9). Many different metadata schemas exist, but in order for digital libraries to achieve interoperability, they must move towards metadata “harmonization”

(Solodovnik 2011, 4663-10). In this paper, I want to focus on cross-cultural or global interoperability and often use the term interoperability interchangeably with it.

For some, the goal of global interoperability seems obvious once one understand the concept. However, for the sake of clarity, I want to explicitly note the objectives of the push towards it in the library community. In many ways, digital library interoperability is just the instantiation and imposition of a global set of standards, or a “meta index” (Boast, Bravo & Srinivasan 2007). Therefore, it follows that the benefits of interoperability map to those of standardization, discussed above. However, there is a noble, idealistic component to the establishment of cross- cultural interoperability: universal access to digital resources. It is a librarian’s calling to bring information to people, so the idea of connecting mass numbers of people, regardless of their language, location or culture, to a vast store of information has great appeal. IS INTEROPERABILITY POSSIBLE? 6

The attempt at bridging linguistic and cultural divides to bring information to people on a grand scale is laudable indeed. However, I believe that achieving cross-cultural interoperability as envisioned by the literature may be impossible. Even if it is attainable, establishing such interoperability by means of a yet unseen set of metadata would come at too high a cost. Before pushing forward, it is important to take stock of what will be lost.

Going forward, I present two philosophical arguments that deny the possibility of global interoperability and a single argument that if it is possible, it is not worth achieving by currently used methodology.

--Problem 1: The Indeterminacy of Translation--

The first argument against cross cultural interoperability of digital libraries (objects and metadata) is based on the indeterminacy of translation, a philosophical principle espoused by twentieth-century American philosopher,

W.V.O. Quine. At the most basic level, the indeterminacy of translation is the idea that there might be different ways of translating language that are “equally correct but which are not mere stylistic variants” (Hylton, 2010). An oft-cited example is that of the “gavagai” (Quine, 1960). Imagine that you are an observer on an island inhabited by natives whose language you do not understand but are attempting to translate. Upon seeing a rabbit, one of the natives, pointing at said rabbit, shouts the word “gavagai.” As translator, it seems to make sense for you to infer that

“gavagai” means “rabbit,” or perhaps, even, “Look, it’s a rabbit!” However, the word might also mean “Rabbithood is manifested here!” or “Behold, undetached rabbit parts!” The observed phenomenon supports any of the above translations as correct, but the latter two differ from the former two. Translations can be provided that differ to an even greater degree while still being supported by the observed phenomenon. What if the natives happen to be superstitious about encountering a rabbit? Might not gavagai mean, “A storm is coming!”? It could even be a swear word. The truth (in the traditional, correspondence-theory sense) of the matter is underdetermined by observation.

If Quine’s theory is true, then it has grave consequences for any corss-cultural interoperability project. One of the promising aspects of digitization and maintaining digital collections is the ability to preserve elements and artifacts of indigenous cultures, many of which have not previously been able to be preserved. These newly-created digital objects have to be classified, presumably by using metadata. This is where indeterminacy affects the process.

According to Quine’s claim, there is absolutely no guarantee of synonymy of meaning when translating from one language to another. In fact, it is exceedingly likely that a gavagai scenario will occur during the translation process IS INTEROPERABILITY POSSIBLE? 7 of concepts of indigenous people. How can digital librarians hope to determine, or trust the determination, which among equally correct translations is the “right” one? If the set of metadata for a digital object means one thing to some and another to others, then retrieval is diminished, organizational integrity is compromised and we do not have true interoperability.

--Problem 2: Incommensurability--

A separate second argument against the possibility of global interoperability is based on the work of philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn. In his work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970), Kuhn describes the history of science as a set of revolutions or paradigm shifts, rather than as a linear, cumulative progression towards the truth of things. His entire argument is beyond the scope of this paper, but Kuhn’s notion of incommensurability is germane to the present debate. When science undergoes revolutionary change, it is due to the paradigm shift of scientists. Theories dominating the old paradigm must be subsumed by new ones, and there is an inevitable reduction of one paradigm’s concepts into the concepts of another; however, Kuhn reasonably contends that old theories often cannot cleanly be reduced to new ones due to resulting explanatory gain and loss. Kuhn refers to such theories as incommensurable (Oberheim & Hoyningen-Huene, 2009). There is an intensional or internal component of incommensurability, meanings of theoretical concepts can depend on the meaning of other theoretical concepts or the entire theory to which they belong (i.e. mass), and the extensional or external component, concept reduction alters conceptual borders which excludes old class members and includes new ones (Oberheim &

Hoyningen-Huene, 2009).

Let us extend Kuhn’s theory to include not just concepts relevant to scientific theory but concepts in general. In doing so, we are merely equating a scientific view with a worldview, which is no novel thing. Returning to our thoughts of standardization, the meta index of cross-cultural interoperability must be uniform across all of its member systems. This is how interoperability is achieved. When adding digital objects to the system, the inclination of digital librarians will be to rely on the standardized set of metadata available in the index and to advance the goals of interoperability. It has always been this way, and adding terms to the meta index will be a long process. What happens when the conceptual underpinnings of the information within a new digital object are incommensurable with concepts in the meta index? Shoehorning digital objects into the meta index by reducing its IS INTEROPERABILITY POSSIBLE? 8 foundational concepts to those that already exist within the index results in the loss of descriptive power of the metadata, the diminishing relevance of searches and the violation of organizational integrity of the meta index.

Note how the problem of incommensurability differs from the problem of the indeterminacy of translation.

Quine’s claim of indeterminacy undermines the attempt at extracting the “right” concept(s) from individual words of another language. My modified extension of Kuhn’s theory of incommensurability undermines the ability to describe concepts using words which have cross-cultural synonymy of meaning.

For whatever reason, suppose one does not buy into either argument. Suppose global interoperability can be achieved via a meta index and will bypass these linguistic pseudo-problems. In the following section, I argue that, even if such interoperability is possible, it is not worth what it will cost.

--Counting the Cost--

Interoperability achieved through the establishment of a meta index ultimately restricts rather than enhances/increases interaction between users and digital objects. Top-down, comprehensive standardization, fueled by the fervor to advance the interoperability agenda, leads to sacrifices in the meaning and accuracy of object descriptions (Boast, Bravo & Srinivasan, 2007). When rapid retrieval and administrative organization are the primary goals of a classification system:

[W]hat transpires is an imposition of the efficiency-driven priorities of the public institution over

its publics…visitors and other stakeholders are potentially exposed to objects that have been

described with information that derives from data interoperability goals instead of the object’s

historical and cultural context” (Boast, Bravo & Srinivasan, 2007)

Boast, Bravo and Srinivasan (2007) go on to claim that it is legitimate to ask if interoperability and digital objects that retain their appropriate significance are mutually exclusive. This is another way of approaching the question of incommensurability.

Some suggest that interoperability can be achieved by maintaining two layers of description. Local institutions adhere to their own “contexualized ontology” (Boast, Bravo & Srinivasan, 2007) but these descriptions IS INTEROPERABILITY POSSIBLE? 9 are also translated to more generalized meta descriptions. Apart from the local institution, the other interconnected members of the interoperable system are only privy to the “higher level” metadata and can search for items by using it. However, it seems that such a setup contains an implicit value judgment about which of the (equally correct) descriptions is the better one.

Furthermore, the filtering out of valuable local knowledge at the level of description cuts off access to digital objects by means of different “ways of knowing” about the world (Boast, Bravo & Srinivasan, 2007). These diverse pints of view contain unique methods of parsing the world and phenomena and also of finding information.

Metadata or descriptions rooted in alternative ways of knowing are essentially avenues to retrieval that are cut off by implementation of a meta index.

--Experiment--

I conducted a brief experiment to illustrate some of my earlier points. I searched for a Immanuel Kant’s

Critique of Pure Reason in four different online locations: Amazon, Books in Print, Haggerty Library via Summon,

J.L. Besole Library via EBSCO EBook Collection. I assign the metadata sets a number for the sake of clarity. I do not claim that reflects a cross-cultural search for a digital object. I do think, however, that this experiment is beneficial for providing a glimpse into the potential problems of top-down, comprehensive standardization via meta index.

EBSCO EBook Collection and the Haggerty Library record for the book contained the following subject descriptors: (1) “Knowledge, Theory of; Causation; Reason.” Books in Print contained several sets of metadata, including, in addition to the above: (2) “Philosophy / General; Philosophy / Epistemology; Philosophy / Movements

/ Rationalism;” and (3) “Philosophy; Philosophy: Epistemology & Theory Of Knowledge; Western Philosophy: C

1600 To C 1900.” Amazon suggested the following tags: (4) “kant; philosophy; epistemology; metaphysics; 18th century; ontology; philosophy of mind; german idealism; germany; 19th century.”

This search provides some useful data to complement some of the more abstract arguments outlined above.

First, there seems to be a general consensus about how to classify the book, as three of the four sites use (1). One of its descriptors is “Knowledge, Theory of” or epistemology. Concerning The Critique, there is a philosophical IS INTEROPERABILITY POSSIBLE? 10 dispute about whether it is actually about epistemology or metaphysics. The two sub-fields do blur a bit, but I think that one must make a decision on which of the two categories Kant’s thesis falls under. Because I already know about Kant’s work, I did not have trouble finding it. What about the user who is searching for seminal works of metaphysics and who is also completely unfamiliar with Kant? I believe that The Critique fits into such a category, but the uninitiated would not retrieve it with her search.

“Causation” is an interesting choice in (1) because, while Kant discusses it in the book, its discussion is part of a larger issue he is dealing with. (3) is far too general to be of any help in a search. Its descriptors denote the book in the most general terms possible. I am surprised that none of the sets contained the phrase “transcendental idealism” the name that Kant ascribed to his philosophy.

Many other observations could be cited and conclusions drawn from this data. The point of the experiment is to demonstrate that classification is an imperfect science (art?) and the propensity for error and misrepresentation only grows when standardized classification via a meta index attempts to bridge linguistic and cultural divides.

--Conclusion--

Interoperability on a global scale may not be truly possible given the philosophic/linguistic hurdles that it must overcome. Supposing that it is possible, it is not feasible given the high cultural and informational cost.

Clearly, a great degree of context and often expertise is required to grasp the conceptual foundations of information of different cultures from one’s own. I am not sure that digital libraries have the resources to devote to constructing a meta index that would be faithful and accurate to meaning of digital objects in their descriptions, no matter what culture they come from (if such a feat is possible). The different ways of seeing the world should be embraced rather than reduced into a single lexicon, and interoperability, if it is to be achieved without high cultural/informational cost, should be reconceptualized so that it incorporates, rather than subsumes, local knowledge.

IS INTEROPERABILITY POSSIBLE? 11

References

Boast, R., Bravo, M., & Srinivasan, R. (2007). Return to Babel: Emergent diversity, digital

resources, and local knowledge. Information Society, 23(5), 395-403.

doi:10.1080/01972240701575635

Bower, J., and Roberts, A. (revised by Leonard Will). 2001. Developments in museum and

cultural heritage information standards. ICOM: CIDOC, October 16. http://www.will

powerinfo.myby.co.uk/cidoc/stand1.htm

Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed). Chicago: U of Chicago Press.

Hylton, P. (2010). Willard van Orman Quine. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. E.

N. Zalta (Ed). Retrieved June 11, 2012 from

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/quine

Oberheim, E & Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2009). The incommensurability of scientific theories.

In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved June 11, 2012 from:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incommensurability/#RevParThoKuhInc

Quine, W.V.O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Solodovnik, I. (2011). Metadata issues in digital libraries: key concepts and perspectives. Italian

Journal of Library & Information Science, 2(2), 4663:1-4663:24 IS INTEROPERABILITY POSSIBLE? 12

======

I certify that:

 This paper/project/exam is entirely my own work.

 I have not quoted the words of any other person from a printed source or a website without indicating what has been quoted and providing an appropriate citation.

 I have not submitted this paper / project to satisfy the requirements of any other course.

Name: Charles Wayne Hodgin III

Date: 06/13/2012