New directions for 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 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 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 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 (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 Khazraee & Lin Version 1 relationships. Finally, they define an ontology as “a set of axioms, i.e. a logical theory designed to capture the intended models corresponding to a certain conceptualization and to exclude unintended ones” (Guarino et al., 2009, p. 8).

In this paper we intend to use the term ontology in the sense explicated by Guarino et. al. (2009), and recognized as the ambitious definition of ontology by Smith (Smith,

2003). This paper intends to address the considerations of design of an application ontology for history and archaeology.

Ontologies for History and Archaeology

Problem statement

It is mentioned in the introduction that the imbalance between the pace of data production and process in history and archaeology becomes an obstacle in historical research. To exploit the machine power it is necessary to achieve machine interpretable data and also to find methods to improve knowledge acquisition and hypothesis generations. Formerly, some ontologies developed to facilitated information sharing and exchange. The most famous example is CIDOC Conceptual Refernce Model (CRM).

CIDOC-CRM is known as ontology for the domain of cultural heritage, developed by documentation committee of International Council of Museums (ICOM) and adopted as

ISO standard in 2006. In the introduction of CRM documentation indicated that it is developed to facilitate information sharing, integration and exchange (Doerr, 2009; Doerr,

Hunter, & Lagoze, 2003). It is necessary to facilitate the aforementioned tasks while they are not enough to accelerate historical data processing. A more ambitious vision for ontologies in history and archaeology includes knowledge acquisition, reasoning, and

Page 6 of 19 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 hypothesis generation and verification. These functions would accelerate processing and reporting procedures which in turn would alleviate the imbalance between data collection/production and data processing/reporting. Therefore, it is necessary to study to what extent it would be possible to employ formal ontologies for these goals.

Before proceed to answer this question we need to understand what are the characteristics of at ontology for history and archaeology and whether they are different from the existing practices in the scientific domains. Following the domain analysis approach to address these question we should study different aspect of these domains of knowledge and compare them as a discipline with the other sciences. Therefore, this study would be counted as a priori to the design of any knowledge organization and representation system in history and archaeology.

Complexities and obstacles

Archaeologists and historians face enormous amount of data during their investigation

(White, 1973b). Studying, comparing and evaluation of this amount of data, manually, is time consuming and expensive, because it needs high level of expertise and human resources at the hand. Moreover, there are few specialists working on specific civilizations or geographical areas, and the span of historical studies is so broad and diverse that one cannot achieve mastery on several different periods, or regions.

Therefore, analysis of huge amount of data by scholars for finding patterns and proposing a hypothesis and finally verify it with other data becomes a long process. The situation would be exacerbated by poor communication and data sharing. Historical fields suffer

Page 7 of 19 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 from lack of consensus on terminology and classification which in turn becomes another impediment in research.

One of the other complexities is the difference between history and science. White

(1973a) argues that the field of history is in a proto-scientific situation, therefore, it does not have the generic forms of investigation like scientific fields. White (1973b) indicates that history is different form sciences in three main directions. He compares history and scientific fields based on Thomas Kuhn's perspective of scientific fields. Every scientific field has three following features in common, generic forms of analyses, shared language for communication and techniques of verification. Establishment of a technical terminology is the requirement of a scientific field*. Doerr (2009) notices the proliferation of specialized terminologies in archaeology and history and the lack of consensus in this regard. White argues that history does not have a system of stipulated meaning for lexical elements and a system of syntactical rules of inference(White, 1973b). Therefore, the common methods of reasoning, which mostly based on deduction, are not directly applicable to the domain of history. This difference has direct impacts on ontology design process.

The problem of history is the problem of what we know vaguely, as once Whitehead mentioned (Sowa, 2006). In general the fluid, dynamically changing nature of information which people learn and reason about, encouraged Sowa to use the term “knowledge soup” for describing knowledge(Sowa, 2000, 2006). overgeneralizations, abnormal conditions, incomplete definitions, conflicting defaults, and unanticipated applications are innate

* It is compatible with the Frege's notion of the scientific investigation. We will back to it later. Page 8 of 19 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 complexities of knowledge soup (Sowa, 2006). These complexities are omnipresent in historians' works.

Uncertainty, existence of contradictory data, possibility of alternative views and necessity of different levels of granularity are some of the challenges of ontology design addressed by Doerr (2003), recognized during the development of CIDOC-CRM.

Moreover, as indicated by Smith and Klagges (2008) there are alternative views of reality and the same reality can be represented in different ways, this thesis is called perspectivalism. Perspectivalism is necessary in the study of history since there are different levels of observation, form the scale of an empire to a small village; moreover, different approaches and cultural context could represent alternative views. Different cultural perspective might lead to different interpretations, therefore, perspectivalism should be considered as an important approach in ontology design.

Almost the same challenges as generic uncertainty, coexistence of contradictory data, different viewpoints and varying granularity were noticed in PhiloSURFical project which is an attempt to develop an ontology for representation of philosophical world (Pasin &

Motta, 2009; Pasin, Motta, & Zdrahal, 2007).

White (1973b) emphasizes that interpretation plays an important role in history, both in selection the required information and in synthesis of a narrative to represent the history.

The important role of interpretation is indicated by Pasin and Motta (2009). Therefore, one of the important issues which needs to be investigated is the nature of interpretation in history and its connection with ontology design.

Page 9 of 19 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 One important fact in historical studies is incompleteness of our knowledge. Usually new discoveries reveal more information and more pieces of the puzzle are found.

Sometimes new techniques enable us to achieve more information and understand that our former propositions were not true anymore. This ever-changing nature of historical data is closer to non-monotonic logics than the monotonic ones. This point should be considered in design of any ontology intended to deal with the flow of information in historical data.

Doerr (2003) indicates that due to the quality and quantity of data in historical knowledge and the way it is acquired the main complexities in the design of conceptual models lies in epistemological arguments rather than engineering models. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate and clarify our epistemological assumptions (what usually taken for granted), before designing an ontology for history and archaeology.

Domain analysis and Historiography

As Doerr (2003) indicated, and emphasized by domain analysis approach as well, to tackle the challenges of an ontology for history and archaeology it is necessary to contemplate on the nature of historical practice and the nature of information objects in this field. One of the canonical questions in the philosophy of history is “what is involved in our knowing, representing, and explaining history?” (Little, 2007). Historiography is the attempt of historian to understand the nature of their work. Therefore, historiography would be an important resource for addressing the challenges of ontology design in this field.

This study follows the Hayden White's theory of historiography presented in his seminal work, Metahistory (White, 1973a). According to White any historical work

Page 10 of 19 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 consist of five levels of conceptualization namely, chronicle, story, mode of emplotment, mode of argument and mode of ideological implication. Chronicle and story refer to primitive elements, represent the process of selection and arrangement of data from unprocessed historical accounts. In these two steps the unprocessed historical data convert to more comprehensible format for an audience. In chronicle, the data arranged in temporal order and in the story, receives further arrangements by characterizations of events as inaugural, termination and transitional motifs. The mode of emplotment is an attempt to provide an explanation for the history by selecting a kind of story which can explain the sequence of the events. White uses the four different mode of empoltment indicated by Northrop Frye in his Anatomy of Criticism, as Romance, Tragedy, Comedy, and Satire. In this step, the work of historian is still a narrative operation of what happened.

In the next level historian looks for an explanation by a formal account and try to explicate “the point of it all” through a formal discursive argument. In this step historian is involved in an investigative operation. He tries to explain the events of history by construction of a nomological-deductive argument, in the same way natural events are explained by identification of universal causal law. In this step the argument moves from

“what happened” to “why it happened as it did”. The last level of conceptualization in historical work is explanation by ideological implication. It seeks implications that can be drawn from the study of past events to the understanding of the present ones, either to change the world or maintain its current state. The importance of White's theory of historical work is its relation to the model of reasoning proposed by Pierce and extended

Page 11 of 19 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 by Sowa. Contemplating on and applying this model in design of ontologies for history can be the subject of future investigations.

The invention of modern symbolic logic introduce a dreamed situation, formed mostly by Frege, that we can overcome the ambiguities of natural language and achieve a deductively complete taxonomic system of knowledge (Legg, 2008). Frege's dream is good for scientific fields that have stipulated meaning for lexical elements in the form of well-formed propositions; and can apply the deductive inference rules. This model does not work for other fields which lack the mentioned characteristics. Everyday life and history are two examples of these cases. Frege's dream appeared in knowledge engineering community in recent years again, and many assumptions about the success of

artificial intelligence were mostly based on this fallacy (Chomsky, 1995; Legg, 2007).

Pierce as one of the pioneers of the modern logic, who used his practical engineering background, indicated that deduction is important but it is not the only method of reasoning, and two other methods are equally important which are induction and

Page 12 of 19 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 abduction (Sowa, 2006). Abductive arguments are inferences to the best explanation.

They typically recognize some facts, point out that it is entailed by a certain hypothesis, and conclude that the hypothesis is true (Walton, 2004). Sowa later added a forth method to this list which is analogical reasoning (Sowa, 2006).

The levels of conceptualization presented by White (White, 1973a) are similar to the

Sowa's proposed model of reasoning (see figure 4) (Sowa, 2006). It can simplify in this form, collecting enough records to form a story (start with induction), finding a mode of explanation in form of a narrative (continue with abducition), and finally seeking principles which can explain the situation and can be extended to explain similar ones

(achieve a theory for deduction). The last level would be an attempt to apply the findings to change or maintain the existing state of the world which can compared with the action in the Sowa's model.

This approach to the study of the ontologies for history and archaeology can open a new direction for further research in this field.

Proposals and new direction for the study of ontologies for history and archaeology

This paper is concluded with discussion of new directions in research on ontologies for history and archaeology. Following domain analysis we propose three new directions for research corresponding the three aspects of a knowledge domain (epistemological, ontological and sociological). As it has been emphasized earlier, contemplation on the epistemological aspects of the domain is a precondition of ontology design; therefore, one of the important directions could be collaboration among philosophers and information scientists in this regard. According to Smith (2003) philosophers and information

Page 13 of 19 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 scientists can learn mutual lessons from this collaboration. He argues that many errors can be prevented by employing philosophical precision. Ontek project is an example of such joint effort (Smith, 2003).

To study they the ontological aspect of a domain of knowledge, one should investigate the objects of human activity and inquiry within that domain. History and archaeology deal with cultural objects; however, the nature and ontology of cultural objects has not been addressed in the domain of information science yet. Works of famous philosopher

Roman Ingarden on the ontology of works of art and cultural objects can be good sources to address this challenge (Ingarden, 1989). One of the complexities of the cultural objects is that they are not merely consisted of physical parts. Cultural objects consist of two aspects; one is a mind dependent aspect and the other is a physical objective aspect.

Ingarden argues against identifying cultural objects with merely physical things that constitute them (Thomasson, 2005). This direction of research can clarify the dimensions of the objects of investigation within the domain of history and archaeology which seems a necessary precondition for ontology design.

An important method to investigate the sociological and epistemological aspect of a domain is the deployment of qualitative research. According to Smith and Klagges (Smith

& Klagges, 2008) a appropriate basis for qualitative research is less developed in this field, while qualitative research provides the framework to better understand quantitative research. Since the process of reasoning in history is more tacit and implicit, then qualitative research method can be a good candidate to provide in depth description of this process which seems a necessary component for ontology design. This research can

Page 14 of 19 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 focus on how do historian collect their data; how do they organize their data; how do they discriminate among data pieces to select a specific set of them; and finally how do they interpret them in a broader context.

Diana Forsythe (1989; 2001, 1993) challenged some common assumptions in AI and expert system community. Her background as an anthropologist helped her to study knowledge engineering labs by ethnographic method (Forsythe, 1999). Her works showed promising outcomes and revealed some of the outsider assumptions and their effects on design of knowledge base systems. It shows that ethnographic study of historians and archaeological practice might provide a better insight of different aspects of these domains. Recently, qualitative and ethnographic research methods has been used in the field of ontology design. Pattuelli (Pattuelli, 2010) used a user-centered approach in design and evaluation of an ontology for cultural heritage resources. Kuziemsky,

Downing, Black, and Lau (2007) used grounded theory for designing an ontology in health care for palliative care sever pain management. Furthermore, grounded theory and qualitative methods have been used for ontology design and knowledge representation in the earth science project GEON (D. Ribes & G. C Bowker, n.d.; David Ribes & Geoffrey

C. Bowker, 2009). This shows that qualitative paradigm started to be adopted in the ontology design community. A preliminary study by the author provided promising evidence of the potentials of this method in ontology design practice.

Page 15 of 19 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 References:

Chomsky, N. (1995). Language and Thought. Moyer Bell.

Doerr, M. (2003). The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Module - An ontological approach to

semantic interoperability of metadata. AI Magazine, 24(3), 75-92.

Doerr, M. (2009). Ontologies for Cultural Heritage. In Handbook on Ontologies, International

Handbooks on Information Systems (pp. 463-486). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Doerr, M., Hunter, J., & Lagoze, C. (2003). Towards a core ontology for information integration.

Journal of Digital information, 4(1), 169.

Fensel, D. (2004). Ontologies: a silver bullet for knowledge management and electronic

commerce. Springer Verlag.

Forsythe, D. E. (1993). Engineering Knowledge: The Construction of Knowledge in Artificial

Intelligence. Social Studies of Science, 23(3), 445-477.

Forsythe, D. E. (1999). “It's Just a Matter of Common Sense”: Ethnography as Invisible Work.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 8(1), 127-145.

Forsythe, D. E. (2001). Studying Those Who Study Us: An Anthropologist in the World of

Artificial Intelligence. Writing science. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.

Forsythe, D. E., & Buchanan, B. (1989). Knowledge acquisition for expert systems: some pitfalls

and suggestions. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on, 19(3), 435-442.

Gruber, T. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge

Acquisition, 5(2), 199-220.

Gruber, T. (2009). Ontology. In L. Liu & T. Ozsu (Eds.), Encyclopedia of database systems. New

York :: Springer,

Guarino, N., Oberle, D., & Staab, S. (2009). What Is an Ontology? In Handbook on Ontologies,

International Handbooks on Information Systems (pp. 1-17). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Page 16 of 19 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 Hjørland, & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a New Horizon in Information-Science – Domain-

Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6), 400-425.

Hjorland, B., & Hartel, J. (2003). Afterword: Ontological, epistemological and sociological

dimensions of domains. Knowledge Organization, 30(3-4), 239-245.

Hjørland, B. (2002). Domain analysis in information science - Eleven approaches - traditional as

well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58(4), 422-462.

Ingarden, R. (1989). Ontology of the Work of Art: The Musical Work, The Picture, The

Architectural Work, The Film. Series in Continental Thought. Athens: Ohio University

Press.

Kuziemsky, C. E., Downing, G. M., Black, F. M., & Lau, F. (2007). A grounded theory guided

approach to palliative care systems design. International Journal of Medical Informatics,

76(Supplement 1), S141-S148.

Legg, C. (2007). Peirce, meaning and the semantic web. Presented at the Applying Peirce,

Helsinki, Finland.

Legg, C. (2008). Ontologies on the Semantic Web. Annual Review of Information Science and

Technology, 41(1), 407-451.

Little, D. (2007). Philosophy of History. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/

McGuinness, D. L. (2003). Ontologies Come of Age. In J. Hendler, H. Lieberman, W. Wahlster,

& D. Fensel (Eds.), Spinning the Semantic Web: Bringing the World Wide Web to Its Full

Potential. The MIT Press.

Noy, N. F., & McGuinness, D. L. (2002). Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your

first ontology. McGuinnes. Stanford University.

Pasin, M., & Motta, E. (2009). Ontological requirements for annotation and navigation of

Page 17 of 19 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 philosophical resources. Synthese, 1-33.

Pasin, M., Motta, E., & Zdrahal, Z. (2007). Capturing knowledge about philosophy. In

Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Knowledge capture (pp. 47-54).

Whistler, BC, Canada: ACM.

Pattuelli, M. C. (2010). Modeling a domain ontology for cultural heritage resources: A user-

centered approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and

Technology, n/a.

Poole, D., Smyth, C., & Sharma, R. (2009). Ontology Design for Scientific Theories That Make

Probabilistic Predictions. Intelligent Systems, IEEE, 24(1), 27-36.

Ribes, D., & Bowker, G. C. (n.d.). A Learning Trajectory for Ontology Building.

Ribes, D., & Bowker, G. C. (2009). Between meaning and machine: Learning to represent the

knowledge of communities. Information and Organization, 19(4), 199-217.

Smith, B. (1989). Logic and Formal Ontology. In J. N. Mohanty & W. McKenna (Eds.), Husserl's

Phenomenology: A Textbook (pp. 29-67). Lanham: University Press of America.

Smith, B. (2003). Ontology. In L. Floridi (Ed.), Blackwell guide to the philosophy of computing

and information (pp. 155–166). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Smith, B., & Klagges. (2008). Philosophy and Biomedical Information Systems. In K. Munn &

B. Smith (Eds.), Applied ontology : an introduction (pp. 21-38). Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag ;

Piscataway, NJ.

Smith, B., & Welty, C. (2001). Ontology: towards a new synthesis. In Proceedings of the

international conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems - FOIS '01 (pp. .

3-.9). Presented at the the international conference, Ogunquit, Maine, USA.

Soergel, D. (1999). The rise of ontologies or the reinvention of classification. Journal of the

American Society for Information Science, 50(12), 1119-1120.

Page 18 of 19 New directions for ontology design in history and archaeology Khazraee & Lin Version 1 Sowa, J. F. (2000). Knowledge representation : logical, philosophical, and computational

foundations. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.

Sowa, J. F. (2006). The challenge of knowledge soup. In J. Ramadas & S. Chunawala (Eds.),

Research Trends in Science, Technology and Mathematics Education (p. 55). Mumbai:

Homi Bhabha Centre.

Thomasson, A. L. (2005). Ingarden and the ontology of cultural objects. Existence, culture, and

persons: The ontology of Roman Ingarden. Frankfurt: Ontos.

Uschold, M., & Gruninger, M. (1996). Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications.

Knowledge Engineering Review, 11(2), 93-136.

Uschold, M., & Gruninger, M. (2004). Ontologies and semantics for seamless connectivity.

SIGMOD Rec., 33(4), 58-64.

Walton, D. (2004). Abductive Reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

White, H. (1973a). Metahistory: the historical imagination in nineteenth-century Europe.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

White, H. (1973b). Interpretation in History. New Literary History, 4(2), 281-314.

Page 19 of 19