DOCSLIB.ORG

New Directions for Ontology Design in History and Archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 New Directions for Ontology Design in History and Archaeology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Directions for Ontology Design in History and Archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 New Directions for Ontology Design in History and Archaeology New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Introduction: Historical and archaeological data is very diverse and dispersed in different institutions even in different countries. Moreover, the pace of data production in this field is far more than data processing. Data processing usually leads to archaeological reports and sometimes to historical narratives about the subject of the study. The imbalance between data production/collection and data process in many cases reaches decades; therefore, many of the people involved in the projects would not be available anymore. That is why there are inventories in museums belong to decades ago which have not been studied yet. In most scientific fields, the obstacle of time consuming calculations and data processing have been reduced dramatically in the last decades due to cheap computation power. A precondition to benefit from machine power is to convert data to computable format and to formalize data processing into machine processable formats. This task, more or less, would be possible in those domains of knowledge which have explicit terminology, well-formed definitions, generic forms of analyses and techniques for verification. However, history is different from sciences as it lacks three following properties, established specific terminology, stipulated meaning for lexical elements, and explicit rules of inference (White, 1973b). Moreover, uncertainty, contradictory data, and validity of different perspectives are intrinsic characteristics of historical investigation; thus, these make historical reasoning process more complex. Consequently, the result is the slow pace of data processing in comparison to data production. Page 1 of 19 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 Ontologies are known as artifacts designed to model domains of knowledge in a machine understandable manner (Gruber, 2009). Ontologies used to improve the shared understanding of people and software agents and enable automatic/semi-automatic knowledge acquisition and reasoning. In many cases it is indicated that ontologies are silver bullets of knowledge management or Semantic Web (Fensel, 2004). However, these promises seem optimistic, in order to exploit machine power in historical data processing it would be necessary to achieve machine interpretable knowledge (Poole, Smyth, & Sharma, 2009) which is tied with knowledge representation and ontologies. It would be obvious that ontology design practices in the scientific domains are not completely applicable for the domain of history. Without clear understanding of the nature of a domain of knowledge it is not possible to design systems to represent or model that domain. Therefore, it would be necessary to inquiry the epistemological assumptions and methods of investigation in that domain of knowledge. This paper proposes to use domain analysis as a paradigm in information science to address the considerations of ontology design in history and archaeology. Domain analysis is a paradigm in Information Science (IS) which recognizes the study of the knowledge-domains as the best way to understand the requirements of information (Hjørland & Albrechtsen, 1995). This study considers cultural, historical, and social aspects of a domain of knowledge (Hjørland, 2002). To find the fitness of any knowledge organization method, domain analysis proposes, to study the domain itself, and to explore its different aspects as follows: Ontological aspects (objects of human activity within a domain), epistemological aspects (the process of obtaining Page 2 of 19 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 knowledge and investigating in a domain), as well as sociological aspects (those groups of the people and institutions dealing with mentioned objects) (Hjorland & Hartel, 2003). This paper first reviews different notions of ontology. Next complexities of ontologies for history and archeaology will be studied and finally, new directions for ontology research in history and archaeology will be presented. What is ontology? The term ontology has a long history in philosophy. This term is known as the synonym of metaphysics (which means what comes after physics), and developed as a discipline by Aristotle who used the term “first philosophy” instead (Smith, 2003). The word ontology comes from the Greek ontos and logos stand for being and word (Sowa, 2000). Smith (2003) traced the first use of the term in early 17th century by two philosophers, Jacob Lorhard and Rudolf Göckel, and he added that the first appearance in English dated back to 1721, in Bailey's dictionary. Later, the term “formal ontology” was first used by Husserl in logical investigation (Smith, 1989). The term “ontology” has been being used in computer and information science community since 1980's and during this period different notions have been proliferated around this term. We should differentiate between ontology as a discipline and ontology as an artifact*. The main concern in Ontology as a discipline in philosophy is to answer the question of “what exists?” Therefore, it is a methodological study of the account of existence. “Philosophical ontology is the science of what is, of the kinds and structures of objects, properties, events, processes and relations in every area of reality”. Ontology in * To disambiguate these situation, “Ontology” with uppercase “O” will be used for ontology as a discipline and the term “ontology” with lowercase “o” will be used for ontology as an artifact. Page 3 of 19 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 philosophy looked for “definitive and exhaustive classifications of entities in all spheres of being” (Smith & Welty, 2001, p. i). On the other hand, ontology as an artifact is “a technical term that is designed for a purpose, which is to enable the modeling of knowledge about some domain, real or imagined” (Gruber, 2009). Legg (2008) argues that “kinds and structures” in Ontology are called categories and this terminology carried over the term ontology in information science. Smith (2003) explains that the motivation behind the ontology in computer and information science is to resolve terminological and conceptual conflicts; therefore, it is seen as a shared taxonomy of entities. He also recognizes a more ambitious definition for ontology in this context as a formal theory which includes both definitions and supporting framework of axioms (Smith, 2003). The former distinction between Ontology (as discipline) and ontology (as a knowledge artifact) is the most radical distinction among different usages of the term. The other differences are more subtle than the former. In mid 90's Gruber provided the mostly accepted definition of the term ontology as, “a formal specification of a conceptualization” (Gruber, 1993). One of the reasons that this definition is widely accepted in the three mentioned community, is its generality. Thus, each community can use it for their own purpose. The most general interpretation of Gruber's definition claims that ontology is a list of existing concepts or entities in a domain. These set of terms or vocabulary can be structured in the form of a hierarchy or a lattice. Soergel (1999) believes that ontology is a new brand invented to be used instead of classification. More sophisticated interpretations do not accept this approach and put emphasis on the formal Page 4 of 19 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 aspect of an ontology. In this sense, an ontology is a structure which is expressed in a formal language and can be shared among different agents. This interpretation forms a spectrum of artifacts which is known as the ontology spectrum (Uschold & Gruninger, 1996). At one end of the ontology spectrum, there are lightweight structures with minimal semantics and formality and at the other end there are structures with richer semantics and formality. This spectrum has been mentioned in different works of the researchers in the domain (McGuinness, 2003; Smith & Welty, 2001; Guarino, Oberle, & Staab, 2009). Although, different authors mention this spectrum of ontologies but each of them emphasizes a specific type of ontology as their choice. Noy and McGuinness (2002) define an ontology as a machine-interpretable common vocabulary which is used to share information about a domain. Uschold and Gruninger (1996) define ontologies as “the shared understanding of some domain of interest which may be used as unifying framework” (Uschold & Gruninger, 1996, pp. 96-97). Later they used Gruber's definition as the standard definition of ontology indicating that the main difference among the approaches to ontology is in the level of specification of the meaning of the terms used in the ontology. They show that there is a continuum starts with little specification of the meaning and ends with rigorously formalized theories (Uschold & Gruninger, 2004). Guarino et. al. (2009) provide a more detailed definition of the ontology by explicating the important aspects of the definition of ontology as “a formal, explicit specification of a shared conceptualization” (Guarino et al., 2009, p. 2). They differentiate among conceptualization as a structure of intensional relationships and a structure of extensional Page 5 of 19 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Metaphysics of Time OA
    Roskilde University Arthur Prior and Special Theory of Relativity: Two Standpoints from the Nachlass Kofod, Julie Lundbak Published in: The Metaphysics of Time Publication date: 2020 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Citation for published version (APA): Kofod, J. L. (2020). Arthur Prior and Special Theory of Relativity: Two Standpoints from the Nachlass. In P. Hasle, D. Jakobsen, & P. Øhrstrøm (Eds.), The Metaphysics of Time: Themes from Prior (pp. 227-247). Aalborg Universitetsforlag. Logic and Philosophy of Time Vol. 4 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain. • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 24. Sep. 2021 The Metaphysics of Time Logic and Philosophy of Time, Vol. 4 Per Hasle, David Jakobsen, and Peter Øhrstrøm (Eds.) The Metaphysics of Time: Themes from Prior Edited
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology and Information Systems
    Ontology and Information Systems 1 Barry Smith Philosophical Ontology Ontology as a branch of philosophy is the science of what is, of the kinds and structures of objects, properties, events, processes and relations in every area of reality. ‘Ontology’ is often used by philosophers as a synonym for ‘metaphysics’ (literally: ‘what comes after the Physics’), a term which was used by early students of Aristotle to refer to what Aristotle himself called ‘first philosophy’.2 The term ‘ontology’ (or ontologia) was itself coined in 1613, independently, by two philosophers, Rudolf Göckel (Goclenius), in his Lexicon philosophicum and Jacob Lorhard (Lorhardus), in his Theatrum philosophicum. The first occurrence in English recorded by the OED appears in Bailey’s dictionary of 1721, which defines ontology as ‘an Account of being in the Abstract’. Methods and Goals of Philosophical Ontology The methods of philosophical ontology are the methods of philosophy in general. They include the development of theories of wider or narrower scope and the testing and refinement of such theories by measuring them up, either against difficult 1 This paper is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS-9975557 (“Ontology and Geographic Categories”) and by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation under the auspices of its Wolfgang Paul Program. Thanks go to Thomas Bittner, Olivier Bodenreider, Anita Burgun, Charles Dement, Andrew Frank, Angelika Franzke, Wolfgang Grassl, Pierre Grenon, Nicola Guarino, Patrick Hayes, Kathleen Hornsby, Ingvar Johansson, Fritz Lehmann, Chris Menzel, Kevin Mulligan, Chris Partridge, David W. Smith, William Rapaport, Daniel von Wachter, Chris Welty and Graham White for helpful comments.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Ontology from Suã¡Rez to Kant (1597-1781)
    History of Ontology from Suárez to Kant (1597-1781) https://www.ontology.co/history.htm Theory and History of Ontology by Raul Corazzon | e-mail: [email protected] Birth of a New Science: the History of Ontology from Suárez to Kant INTRODUCTION "To begin with we want to state that ontology should be seen only as an interdiscipline involving both philosophy and science. It is a discipline which points out the problems of the foundations of the sciences as well as the borderline questions, and which further attempts to solve these problems and questions. Ontology is not a discipline which exists separately and independently from all the other scientific disciplines and also from other branches of philosophy. Rather, ontology derives the general structure of the world; it obtains the structure of the world as it really is from knowledge embodied in other disciplines. If one examines the history of philosophy one sees that ontology has never solved or attempted to solve the questions about the structures of our world independently, apart from the other philosophical disciplines or apart from the sciences. As is expressed by this symposium's topic, "Language and Ontology", ontology has derived the world's structure from other disciplines which describe reality, and has thus relied upon the languages of other disciplines. A common belief is that this derivation of the world's most general structures from the knowledge of other disciplines is ontology's only task. But now the belief is that in doing ontology one always selects the most important and most general laws from among all the laws which the various disciplines have to offer at any given time.
    [Show full text]
  • Database and Ontology Mini-Series Data and Process Revisited
    Ontolog: Database And Ontology Mini-Series Data and process revisited: ontology driving a paradigm shift in the development of business application systems Chris Partridge BORO Centre – Chief Ontologist Caveat – area of interest • Large Operational •Semantic Web Business Systems, Applications e.g. – “Collective –ERP Systems Knowledge” Systems –CRM Systems – Social networking – –FX Settlement Facebook Systems –Wikis – Trading Accounting – Bio-medical Systems dictionaries – Retail POS Systems • Inference – Telecom Billing – Logics – first order, Systems description Page 2 - © 2007 The BORO Centre Ltd. Thesis 1. There is a common interest in ‘what exists’ (= ontology) in philosophy and business systems 2. The business systems community works within a paradigm for this that is not adequate for the development of modern large complex systems 3. A review of where ontology fits into the development process leads to a proposal for revising this paradigm 4. The revised paradigm leads to a reassessment of one of today’s key IT problems – the re-development of legacy systems Page 3 - © 2007 The BORO Centre Ltd. Ontology: Philosophy and Business Systems •Goal: – Establish that there is a common interest in what exists (= ontology). – Start with a brief history of ontology Page 4 - © 2007 The BORO Centre Ltd. A brief history of Ontology • History of the word – The word ontology is from the Greek ὄν, genitive ὄντος: of being (part. of εἶναι: to be) and -λογία: science, study, theory. – While the etymology is Greek, the oldest extant record of the word itself is the Latin form ontologia, which appeared in 1661, in the work Ogdoas Scholastica by Jacob Lorhard (Lorhardus) and in 1631 in the Lexicon Philosophicum by Rudolph Göckel (Goclenius).
    [Show full text]
  • Barry Smith 1 ARTIFICIAL COMPANIONS Ontology As A
    THE RELEVANCE OF PHILOSOPHICAL ONTOLOGY TO INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCE Barry Smith Preprint version of a paper to appear in Ruth Hagengruber and Uwe Riss (eds.), Philosophy, Computing and Information Science, London: Pickering and Chatto, 2014, 75-83 1 ARTIFICIAL COMPANIONS Ontology as a branch of philosophy is the science of what is, of the kinds and structures of objects, properties, events, processes and relations in every area of reality. The earliest use of the term ‘ontology’ (or ‘ontologia’) seems to have been in 1606 in the book Ogdoas Scholas- tica by the German Protestant scholastic Jacob Lorhard. For Lorhard, as for many subsequent philosophers, ‘ontology’ is a synonym of ‘metaphysics’ (a label meaning literally: ‘what comes after the Physics’), a term used by early students of Aristotle to refer to what Aristotle himself called ‘first philosophy’. Some philosophers use ‘ontology’ and ‘metaphysics’ to refer to two distinct, though interrelated, disciplines, the former to refer to the study of what might exist; the latter to the study of which of the various alternative possible ontologies is in fact true of reality.1 The term – and the philosophical discipline of ontology – has enjoyed a checkered history since 1606, with a significant expansion, and consolidation, in recent decades (see Figure 1, which records references to ‘ontology’ in items accessible to the google website). We shall not discuss here the successive rises and falls in philosophical acceptance of the term, but rather focus on certain phases in the history of recent philosophy which are most relevant to the consideration of its recent advance, and increased acceptance, also outside the discipline of philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Article JOURNAL of CATALAN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY, Issues 7&8, 2014 | Print ISSN 2014-1572 / Online ISSN 2014-1564 DOI: 10.2436/20.3001.02.85 | P
    article JOURNAL OF CATALAN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY, Issues 7&8, 2014 | Print ISSN 2014-1572 / Online ISSN 2014-1564 DOI: 10.2436/20.3001.02.85 | P. 11-30 Reception date: 8/11/2013 / Admission date: 12/12/2013 http://revistes.iec.cat/index.php/JOCIH Three theses on the historiography and ontology of Ferrater Mora Pompeu Casanovas Institute of Law and Technology Autonomous University of Barcelona [email protected] abstract This paper advances three theses on the link between ontology and history in Ferrater Mora’s works: (i) his intellectual history is a second-order semantic history, (ii) his ontology may be defined as a second-order hermeneutics, and (iii) his philosophy (which he called integrationism) consists of a second-order dialogue that, despite its limitations, comes to make sense within the latest generation of the Web. The paper also considers the role of computational ontologies in the management and organisation of philosophical contents. key words Ferrater Mora, ontology, ontologies, intellectual history, philosophy of history, integrationism. 1. Three theses on Ferrater Let me begin directly by spelling out the three theses that I would like to defend1: 1. Ferrater’s brand of intellectual history — I am referring to the history con- structed in his Dictionary2 and related articles — constitutes a second-order semantic history. 1 This paper is a revised version of a text presented at a conference devoted to the philosopher and essayist Josep Ferrater Mora (Barcelona 1912-1991) in commemoration of the cente- nary of his birth, organised jointly by the IEC and the Ferrater Mora Chair in Barcelona and Girona, respectively, on 7 and 8 November 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology in Classical Greek Philosophy
    This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0) Knowledge Engineering with Semantic Web Technologies Lecture 3: Ontologies and Logic 3.13 EXTRA: A Brief History of Ontology Dr. Harald Sack Hasso Plattner Institute for IT Systems Engineering University of Potsdam Autumn 2015 Semantic Web Technologies , Dr. Harald Sack, Hasso Plattner Institute, University of Potsdam What is Ontology? ● Etymology: ○ ον [greek] participle of „to be“ ○ λογια [greek] science ● (simplified) Definition: ○ „philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations....“ (wikipedia) ● General Question: ○ „what does exist or can be said to exist?“ ● General Metaphysics vs. Epistemology Jacob Lorhard: Ogdoas Scholastica, continens Diagraphen Typicam artium: Grammatices (Latinae, Graecae), SemanticLogices, Web Rhetorices, Technologies Astronomices, , Dr. Harald Ethices, Sack, Physices, Hasso Plattner Metaphysices, Institute, seu Ontologiae.University Sangalli:of Potsdam Straub, 1606 Fundamental Questions of Ontology 1. What does it mean for a being to be? ● When are two things identical? ● Is everything that exists also real? ● Does something exist, if it is only possible? ● Are there non-existing things? 2. What categories of objects do exist? ● Do things exist that are only unique or only multiple (Universalia)? ● Do things exist that are unilaterally dependent of others (Substances)? ● Of which sort is this dependency (Causality)? ● Do necessary properties
    [Show full text]
  • Applied Ontology Cannot Share Data with One Another
    Ontology is the philosophical discipline which aims to understand how things in the world are divided into categories and how these categories are related together. This is exactly what information scientists aim for in creating structured, automated Katherine Munn representations, called 'ontologies,' for managing information in fields such as science, government, Barry Smith (Eds.) industry, and healthcare. Currently, these systems are designed in a variety of different ways, so they Applied Ontology cannot share data with one another. They are often · idiosyncratically structured, accessible only to those who created them, and unable to serve as inputs for automated reasoning. This volume shows, in a non- Applied Ontology technical way and using examples from medicine and biology, how the rigorous application of An Introduction theories and insights from philosophical ontology can improve the ontologies upon which information Wachter management depends. RESEARCH Edited by Maria E. Reicher · Johanna Seibt Barry Smith · Daniel von METAPHYSICAL Katherine Munn, Barry Smith (Eds.) ontos 9 783938 793985 verlag Distributed in North and South America by Transaction Books ISBN 978-3-938793-98-5 Katherine Munn, Barry Smith Applied Ontology An Introduction M E T A P H Y S I C A L R E S E A R C H Herausgegeben von / Edited by Uwe Meixner • Johanna Seibt Barry Smith • Daniel von Wachter Band 8 / Volume 9 Katherine Munn, Barry Smith Applied Ontology An Introduction Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology: Towards a New Synthesis
    Ontology: Towards a New Synthesis Barry Smith1 and Christopher Welty2 1Department of Philosophy, University at Buffalo Buffalo, NY 14260, USA [email protected] 2Computer Science Dept., Vassar College Poughkeepsie, NY 12604, USA [email protected] Abstract —This introduction to the second international conference on Formal Ontology and Information Systems presents a brief history of ontology as a discipline spanning the boundaries of philosophy and information science. We sketch some of the reasons for the growth of ontology in the information science field, and offer a preliminary stocktaking of how the term ‘ontology’ is currently used. We conclude by suggesting some grounds for optimism as concerns the future collaboration between philosophical ontologists and information scientists. Categories & Descriptors — Information Systems, Artificial Intelligence. General Terms — Ontology, conceptual modeling, domain modeling, formal ontology in information systems. Keywords — History of ontology in philosophy and computer science. Philosophical ontology is the science of what is, of the kinds and structures of objects, properties, events, processes and relations in every area of reality. Philosophical ontology takes many forms, from the metaphysics of Aristotle to the object-theory of Alexius Meinong. The term ‘ontology’ (or ontologia) was itself coined in 1613, independently, by two philosophers, Rudolf Göckel (Goclenius), in his Lexicon philosophicum and Jacob Lorhard (Lorhardus), in his Theatrum philosophicum. Its first occurrence in English as recorded by the OED appears in Bailey’s dictionary of 1721, which defines ontology as ‘an Account of being in the Abstract’. Regardless of its name, what we now refer to as philosophical ontology has sought the definitive and exhaustive classification of entities in all spheres of being.
    [Show full text]
  • A Conception of Social Ontology1 (Forthcoming in Stephen Pratten [Ed.] 2014)
    A Conception of Social Ontology1 (Forthcoming in Stephen Pratten [ed.] 2014) Tony Lawson Faculty of Economics Sidgwick Avenue Cambridge CB3 9DD E-mail: [email protected] The purpose here is to describe and defend a programme in social ontology. It is a programme being carried though by a group of researchers in Cambridge2. Before turning to indicate how ontology is useful, and indeed can be reasonably carried through, an indication is provided as to how certain central categories are interpreted. Basic Categories Ontology The term ontology3 derives from Greek, with “onto” meaning “being”, and “logos” usually interpreted as “science”; so that ontology, as traditionally understood, is the science or study of being4. The word being has at least two senses: 1) Something that is, or exists; 2) What it is to be or to exist; It follows that if ontology is the study of being it includes at least the following: 1) The study of what is, or what exists, including the study of the nature of specific existents 2) The study of how existents exist. This twofold conception is adopted here5. 1 First formulated December 2004 as ‘A Conception of Ontology’; modified October 2009; modified again October 2010; and again October 2012, this time entitled ‘A Conception of Social Ontology’, and again July and finally November 2013. For helpful comments on various earlier drafts of this paper I am very grateful to members of (and visitors to) the Cambridge Social Ontology Group, most especially Ismael Al-Amoudi, Dave Elder-Vass, Phil Faulkner, Clive Lawson, John Latsis and Stephen Pratten.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology-Driven Knowledge Discovery
    IMT Institute for Advanced Studies, Lucca Lucca, Italy Ontology-Driven Knowledge Discovery PhD Program in Computer Science and Engineering XXI Cycle By Barbara Furletti 2009 The dissertation of Barbara Furletti is approved. Program Coordinator: Prof. Ugo Montanari, University of Pisa Supervisor: Prof. Franco Turini, University of Pisa The dissertation of Barbara Furletti has been reviewed by: Dr. Hans-Ulrich Krieger, DFKI - Language Technology Lab. Saarbrucken - Germany Prof. Bettina Berendt, Department of Computer Science - Catholic Uni- versity of Leuven - Belgium IMT Institute for Advanced Studies, Lucca 2009 To the important people of my life. Contents List of Figures x List of Tables xii Acknowledgements xv Vita and Publications xvi Abstract xx 1 Introduction 1 2 Contextualizing the Work 8 2.1 Knowledge Discovery: a Brief Introduction . .8 2.2 Ontologies: State of the Art . 15 2.2.1 From Philosophy ... 15 2.2.2 ...to the Information Science . 18 2.2.3 Logics and Ontology: Languages and Reasoning . 20 2.2.4 Description Logic Based Approaches . 23 2.2.5 Ontology Based Reasoning: an Example . 31 3 Answering the Open Questions 35 3.1 How to Mine the Ontology Schema? . 35 3.1.1 Graph Theory: a Structural Analysis . 37 3.1.2 Ontology Evaluation Metrics: Pointing Out the Rel- evant Concepts . 43 vii 3.1.3 Link Analysis: Another Way for Measuring Rele- vant Concepts . 51 3.1.4 Semantic Association Discovery: a Promising Ap- proach . 62 3.1.5 Multi-Relational Data Mining . 65 3.2 How to Compute Weights and How to Associate Them to Implications? . 69 3.3 Semantic Web: Social Networks, Ontologies or Both? .
    [Show full text]
  • 1-18 EON Project EN
    EON PROJECT CHERUBIN, Rose; GALGANO, Nicola; PULPITO, Massimo, SANTORO, Fernando, Eleatic Ontology: origin and reception. Anais de Filosofia Clássica 27, 2020. p. 1-18 ABSTRACT: The first volume of the project Eleatic Ontology: Origin and Reception focuses its gaze on ancient philosophy, where the main characteristics of a prospective Eleatic ontology have been forged. In ancient Greek thought, we find the origin of this theoretical perspective, in the work of Parmenides and the other Eleatics, who in their own way testify to a first reception of Parmenideanism. Thereafter, ancient philosophy has repeatedly shown examples of Eleatic Ontology: origin reception of this standpoint, and it was this Nachleben that was, in turn, the origin of the and reception notion of Eleatic ontology in the following centuries. KEYWORDS: Eleatics; Ontology; Introductions Metaphysics; History of Philosophy; Ancient Philosophy. RESUMO: O primeiro volume do projeto Ontologia Eleática: Origem e Recepção lança Rose Cherubin seu olhar para a filosofia antiga, onde as principais características de uma prospectiva Associate professor of philosophy at George Mason University ontologia eleática foram forjadas. No https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1709-7510 pensamento grego antigo, encontramos a origem [email protected] desta perspectiva teórica, na obra de Parmênides e dos outros eleatas, que a seu modo Nicola Galgano testemunharam uma primeira recepção do Parmenidianismo. Mais tarde, a filosofia antiga Researcher at Universidade de São Paulo veio a mostrar repetidamente exemplos de https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6876-1119 recepção deste ponto de vista, e foi esta [email protected] posteridade que, por sua vez, originou a noção de ontologia eleática nos séculos seguintes.
    [Show full text]