DOCSLIB.ORG

A Philosophical Approach to Upper-Level Ontologies A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Philosophical Approach to Upper-Level Ontologies A A PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH TO UPPER-LEVEL ONTOLOGIES A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY DİLEK SATIOĞLU IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY SEPTEMBER 2015 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences Prof. Dr. Meliha Altunışık Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts. Prof. Dr. Şeref Halil Turan Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aziz Fevzi Zambak Supervisor Examining Committee Members Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hilmi Demir (Bilkent Uni., Phil) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aziz Fevzi Zambak (METU, Phil) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Elif Çırakman (METU, Phil) I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last name : Dilek Satıoğlu Signature : iii ABSTRACT A PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH TO UPPER-LEVEL ONTOLOGIES Satıoğlu, Dilek M.A., Department of Philosophy Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aziz Fevzi Zambak September 2015, 101 pages The aim of this thesis is to provide a philosophical approach to upper-level ontologies. The ontologies and/or categorical system of Aristotle, Kant, Husserl, and Quine are evaluated in order to give a philosophical understanding of ontologies. After an explanation of the developments in ontology as a new interdisciplinary study, the most well known upper-level ontologies, BFO, DOLCE, SUMO, and Cyc, are analysed technically. In the light of philosophical ontologies and categorical systems, these upper-level ontologies are criticised in terms of the fundamental constituents of upper-level ontologies. Keywords: ontology, upper-level ontologies, philosophical approach iv ÖZ ÜST DÜZEY ONTOLOJİLERE FELSEFİ YAKLAŞIM Satıoğlu, Dilek Yüksek Lisans, Felsefe Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Aziz Fevzi Zambak Eylül 2015, 101 sayfa Bu tezde üst düzey ontolojiler felsefi bir bakışla analiz edilmiştir. Ontolojinin felsefi olarak nasıl ele alındığını göstermek için Aristoteles, Kant, Husserl ve Quine’nın ontolojileri ve/veya kategori sistemleri incelenmiştir. Disiplinlerarası bir bilim olarak karşımıza çıkan ontolojinin gelişmesi anlatıldıktan sonra, en çok tanınan üst düzey ontolojilerden BFO, DOLCE, SUMO ve Cyc teknik özellikleri bakımından analiz edilmiştir. Felsefi ontolojilerin ve kategori sistemlerinin ışığı altında, bu üst düzey ontolojiler, üst düzey ontolojilerin temel yapıtaşlarına göre araştırılmıştır. Anahtar Kelimeler: ontoloji, üst düzey ontoloji, felsefi yaklaşım v To Truth and Beauty, and to the those who partake of the both vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In spite of many difficulties, this thesis has been completed. I owe my gratitude to all lovely people who made this work possible. My deepest gratitude is to my supervisor, Aziz Fevzi Zambak, without whose patience, encouragement, and faith, this thesis could not have been started, continued, or finished. I would like to thank my colleagues in the Laboratory for Computational Ontology for their various forms of support. Special thanks to my friends, especially Onur Eylül Kara and Berk Yaylım who have always encouraged me during my master studies; and Refet Şaban who has always been a dearest friend that reminds the truths. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Başar Yargan, who experienced all the difficult and glorious moments with me throughout this endeavor. Lastly, I would like to express my deep love and gratitude to my family, especially Yavrukuş and Bobi, without whom something is always missing. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS PLAGIARISM . iii ABSTRACT . iv ÖZ . v DEDICATION . vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . vii TABLE OF CONTENTS . viii LIST OF TABLES . x LIST OF FIGURES . xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . xii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION . 1 2. ANALYSES OF PHILOSOPHICAL ONTOLOGIES 2.1. Philosophical Ontologies . 9 2.1.1. Aristotle’s Ontology . 10 2.1.2. Husserl’s Ontology . 17 2.1.3. Quine’s Ontology . 24 2.2. Categories . 28 2.2.1. Category System of Aristotle . 29 2.2.2. Category System of Kant . 31 2.2.3. Category System of Husserl . 34 2.2.4. Category System of Quine . 35 3. ANALYSES OF UPPER-LEVEL ONTOLOGIES . 37 3.1. Basic Formal Ontology . 41 3.2. The Descriptive Ontology for Linguistics and Cognitive Engineering . 48 3.3. The Suggested Upper Merged Ontology . 52 viii 3.4. Cyc and OpenCyc . 57 3.5. Some Upper-Level Ontologies . 61 4. ANALYSES . 65 5. CONCLUSION . 78 REFERENCES . 82 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. TURKISH SUMMARY . 89 APPENDIX B. TEZ FOTOKOPİSİ İZİN FORMU . 101 ix LIST OF TABLES TABLES Table 1.1 “The Four Phases of Philosophy” from ancient times to today . 4 Table 2.1 The Selected Philosophers in the Four Phases of Philosophy . 10 Table 2.2 Kant’s System of Categories . 33 Table 2.3 Husserl’s System of Categories . 34 Table 3.1 Basic Primitive Relations in DOLCE . 51 Table 4.1 Philosophical Assumptions of ULOs . 77 x LIST OF FIGURES FIGURES Figure 2.1 Brentano’s Tree of Aristotle’s Categories . 31 Figure 3.1 The BFO 2.0 is_a Hierarchy . 43 Figure 3.2 The Top Level Categories in DOLCE . 50 Figure 3.3 The Top Level Categories in SUMO . 55 Figure 3.4 The Hierarchy of SUMO Theories . 56 Figure 3.5 The Top Level Categories in Cyc . 59 xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS In this work, while citing from Aristotle, I use Bekker numbers without mentioning the names of books of the corpus. Similarly, citations from Kant include both Kant’s first (A) and second (B) editions. Further, the belief that citing Husserl’s Logical Investigations as “LI” may confuse readers because of the usage of Roman numerals, which are used for indicating the chapters, make me use the German name of the book, Logischen Untersuchen, when citations are made. xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Ἀρχή, in a philosophical sense, means the first principle that is the ultimate cause of everything there is; and the history of philosophy, if it finds its roots in Ancient Greek, starts with questioning what ἀρχή is. In the course of investigation, this question is modified to “What is there?”, hence; obviously the first inquiry of philosophy is boiled down to ontology, the science of being.1 Throughout the history of philosophy, the answer to what there is has taken various versions according to philosophers’ doctrines. The versions can be derived by formulation, rejection, interpretation, or construction.2 Ontology, moreover, has been given many names during centuries. At the very early phrase of philosophy, as mentioned before, ontology is the science of ἀρχή. Aristotle calls it the first philosophy, and then it is also called metaphysics after him; and in the doctrines of Plotinus, and Al-Farabi, for instance, it is nothing but theology. Today, understandably, it has a different guise. Whether it is called the first philosophy, metaphysics or theology, ontology is the science of the things that exist in reality and the hierarchical relations between them.3 Therefore, the difference lies between different ontologies on that what has to be taken as reality and how the relations between these realities have to be mapped. The developments of philosophical ideas and/or concepts have been classified even from the ancient times; moreover, classifications depart from one 1 Etymologically, ontology comes from the Greek word ὄν, meaning “being”, that is the present participle of εἰμί, meaning “to be”. When λογία is added to ὄν, the word ontology is constructed as the study of being. 2 Formulation, e.g. Thales’ statement that everything is ultimately water; rejection, e.g. Anaximenes’ statement that everything is not water but ultimately air; interpretation, e.g. statements of Zeno of Elea who is a passionate advocate of Parmenides; construction, e.g. the works of St. Thomas Aquinas who adapted Aristotelian ontology to Christian theology. 3 Any debate about the distinction between “that there is” and “that there exists” is ruled out. 1 another according to understanding of a thinker. Among the many readings of history of philosophy, I appeal to Brentano’s theory of history of philosophy for the following reasons.4 The first reason is based on Brentano’s attitude to philosophy as a scientific effort, which holds also for ontology. As it will be explained in the following lines, ontology today is taken as a new science, so Brentano’s reflection to history of philosophy can provide an appropriate approach to today’s ontology. Thereby, the second reason is that Brentano’s theory can help us to interpret the current situation of ontology, so that predictions can be done in order to flourish this new science. Hence, before the explanation of the current situation of ontology, Brentano’s theory of history of philosophy has to be shown. Philosophy, according to Brentano, has always had two phases, of which the first phase covers ascending development, and the second phase covers decadence.5 These two phases of development and decline in the history of philosophy have recursive feature, and can be observed “in the periods of antiquity, in the Middle Ages, and in the modern period up to the collapse of the Hegelian school”. Brentano explains these two phases in the part three of his essay. The development in the first phase is gained either through “a lively and pure theoretical interest” or through the support of scientific methodologies, such as perfecting hypotheses, enlarging the scope of the inquiry, challenging new questions. The second phase, which is the decline of the first phase, is “in fact the first stage of decline”.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Survey of Top-Level Ontologies to Inform the Ontological Choices for a Foundation Data Model
    A survey of Top-Level Ontologies To inform the ontological choices for a Foundation Data Model Version 1 Contents 1 Introduction and Purpose 3 F.13 FrameNet 92 2 Approach and contents 4 F.14 GFO – General Formal Ontology 94 2.1 Collect candidate top-level ontologies 4 F.15 gist 95 2.2 Develop assessment framework 4 F.16 HQDM – High Quality Data Models 97 2.3 Assessment of candidate top-level ontologies F.17 IDEAS – International Defence Enterprise against the framework 5 Architecture Specification 99 2.4 Terminological note 5 F.18 IEC 62541 100 3 Assessment framework – development basis 6 F.19 IEC 63088 100 3.1 General ontological requirements 6 F.20 ISO 12006-3 101 3.2 Overarching ontological architecture F.21 ISO 15926-2 102 framework 8 F.22 KKO: KBpedia Knowledge Ontology 103 4 Ontological commitment overview 11 F.23 KR Ontology – Knowledge Representation 4.1 General choices 11 Ontology 105 4.2 Formal structure – horizontal and vertical 14 F.24 MarineTLO: A Top-Level 4.3 Universal commitments 33 Ontology for the Marine Domain 106 5 Assessment Framework Results 37 F. 25 MIMOSA CCOM – (Common Conceptual 5.1 General choices 37 Object Model) 108 5.2 Formal structure: vertical aspects 38 F.26 OWL – Web Ontology Language 110 5.3 Formal structure: horizontal aspects 42 F.27 ProtOn – PROTo ONtology 111 5.4 Universal commitments 44 F.28 Schema.org 112 6 Summary 46 F.29 SENSUS 113 Appendix A F.30 SKOS 113 Pathway requirements for a Foundation Data F.31 SUMO 115 Model 48 F.32 TMRM/TMDM – Topic Map Reference/Data Appendix B Models 116 ISO IEC 21838-1:2019
    [Show full text]
  • Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications Roberto Poli · Michael Healy · Achilles Kameas Editors
    Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications Roberto Poli · Michael Healy · Achilles Kameas Editors Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications 123 Editors Roberto Poli Dr. Michael Healy University of Trento 13544 23rd Place NE., Dept. Sociology and Social Research Seattle WA 98125-3325 26, Verdi str. USA 38100 Trento [email protected] Italy [email protected] Achilles Kameas Hellenic Open University & Computer Technology Institute N. Kazantzaki Str. 265 00 Patras University Campus Greece [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] ISBN 978-90-481-8846-8 e-ISBN 978-90-481-8847-5 DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-8847-5 Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York Library of Congress Control Number: 2010933121 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 Chapter 11 is published with kind permission of © All rights reserved No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) Preface After a long period of decline, ontology is back at the forefront of philosophy, sci- ence and technology. These days ontology comes in at least two main fashions: the traditional philosophical understanding of ontology has been recently flanked by a new – computer-based – understanding of ontology.
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamic Being
    Dynamic Being Dynamic Being: Essays in Process-Relational Ontology Edited by Vesselin Petrov and Adam C. Scarfe Dynamic Being: Essays in Process-Relational Ontology Edited by Vesselin Petrov and Adam C. Scarfe This book first published 2015 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2015 by Vesselin Petrov, Adam C. Scarfe and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-7695-X ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-7695-7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ...................................................................................................... viii Dynamical and Process-Relational Ontologies Vesselin Petrov Acknowledgments ............................................................................... xxxvii Part I: Dynamic and Process-Relational Ontologies—Theory Chapter One ................................................................................................. 2 Aristotle’s “Completeness Test” as Heuristics for an Account of Dynamicity Johanna Seibt Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 28 The Difference between Dynamical Systems and Process Theories
    [Show full text]
  • The Many Faces of Psychoontology
    Axiomathes (2013) 23:525–542 DOI 10.1007/s10516-012-9197-9 ORIGINAL PAPER The Many Faces of Psychoontology Konrad Werner Received: 3 April 2012 / Accepted: 30 August 2012 / Published online: 11 September 2012 Ó The Author(s) 2012. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Psychoontology is a philosophical theory of the cognizing subject and various related matters. In this article. I present two approaches to the discipline— the first proposed by Jerzy Perzanowski, the second by Jesse Prinz and Yoram Hazony. I then undertake to bring these into unity using certain ideas from Husserl and Frege. Applying the functor qua, psychoontology can be described as a disci- pline concerned with: (a) the cognizing subject qua being—this leads to the ques- tion: what kind of being is the subject (is it an object?, simple or complex?, a process?) and what makes him/her/it possible; (b) being qua cognized, this leads to the question: under what conditions can we access the world? Since the notion of being qua cognized might seem peculiar, I present its context and discuss it in detail in the last section. Keywords Cognition Á Cognitive science Á Hazony Á Perzanowski Á Prinz Á Psychoontology Á Qua 1 Introduction Nearly 20 years ago Jerzy Perzanowski coined the term ‘‘psychoontology’’ to describe a special type of applied ontology focusing on human cognition. Psychoontological issues are of course not new and have been the object of philosophical enquiry since antiquity. Nevertheless the last decades of the twentieth century saw a rediscovery and re-contextualization of psychoontological problems with the emergence of interdisciplinary cognitive science.
    [Show full text]
  • General Ontology Baseline
    SFB/TR 8: I1-[OntoSpace] OntoSpace Project Report University of Bremen Germany General Ontology Baseline Deliverable D1 I1-[OntoSpace]; Workpackage 1 Scott Farrar and John Bateman December 2005 Version: 2.0 http://www.sfbtr8.uni-bremen.de/I1 e-mail: {farrar,bateman}@uni-bremen.de Roadmap for baseline deliverables D1-D4 The baseline position on ontology, ontology construction, and ontology use adopted in the project I1-[OntoSpace] is set out in a sequence of four deliverables (D1-D4). Each provides an introduction to the respective states of the art and describes the positions within these that I1-[OntoSpace] is adopting for its own work or as proposals for ontology construction within the SFB/TR Ontology Working Group generally. The baseline is made up of the following components: D1 Ontology as such and the principal approaches and methodologies currently available for general ontology construction; D2 The ontologies of space: approaches to representing space that have been taken on ontology and qualitative spatial representation and reasoning; D3 The ontologies motivated by and for language: approaches to representing the kinds of distinctions that treatments of natural language require—particularly but not exclusively those required for spatial language; D4 Inter-Ontology mappings and structuring devices: approaches to constructing on- tologies out of submodules and of relating such submodules in systematic ways. This is the first of these deliverables and introduces the notions of ontology as such. Deliverables D1, D2 and D3 are results of Workpackage 1 as described in the I1-OntoSpace project proposal; D4 is a result of Workpackage 3 and cooperation with project I4-[SPIN].
    [Show full text]
  • Realism for Scientific Ontologies
    Realism for scientific ontologies Michel Dumontier a;1 and Robert Hoehndorf b;c a Department of Biology, Institute of Biochemistry and School of Computer Science, Carleton University b European Bioinformatics Institute c Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology (IMISE), University of Leipzig Abstract. Science aims to develop an accurate understanding of reality through a variety of rigorously empirical and formal methods. Ontologies are used to formal- ize the meaning of terms within a domain of discourse. The Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) is an ontology of particular importance in the biomedical domains, where it provides the top-level for numerous ontologies, including those admitted as part of the OBO Foundry collection. The BFO requires that all classes in an ontology are actually instantiated in reality. Despite the fact that it is hard to show whether entities of some kind exist or do not exist in reality (especially for unobservable en- tities like elementary particles), this criterion fails to satisfy the need of scientists to communicate their findings and theories unambiguously. We discuss the problems that arise due to the BFO’s realism criterion and suggest viable alternatives. Keywords. Realism, biomedical ontology, philosophy of science 1. Introduction Science aims to better understand reality through a variety of rigorously empirical (obser- vation and experimentation) and formal methods (mathematics, statistics and logic). Re- ality, however, is hard to investigate due to intrinsic stochasticity in addition to unknown, inaccessible, and multiple levels of complexity. To reduce this complexity, contemporary scientists develop tractable experimental or computational models of reality that provide a slightly more controlled environment in which experiments may be carried.
    [Show full text]
  • Persistence, Change, and the Integration of Objects and Processes in the Framework of the General Formal Ontology
    1 Persistence, Change, and the Integration of Objects and Processes in the Framework of the General Formal Ontology Heinrich Herre 2.12.2013 Abstract. In this paper we discuss various problems associated to temporal phenomena. These problems include persistence and change, the integration of objects and processes, and truth-makers for temporal propositions. We propose an approach which interprets persistence as a phenomenon emanating from the activity of the mind, and which, additionally, postulates that persistence, finally, rests on personal identity. The General Formal Ontology (GFO) is a top level ontology being developed at the University of Leipzig. Top level ontologies can be roughly divided into 3D-Ontologies, and 4D-ontologies. GFO is the only top level ontology, used in applications, which is a 4D-ontology admitting additionally 3D objects. Objects and processes are integrated in a natural way. 1. Introduction This paper is devoted to the topic of identity over time and to problems arising from this phenomenon. If a thing really changes then it cannot be identical before and after the change. From this condition follows by contraposition, that no thing has undergone any change. On the other hand, we usually assume the existence of changing things, being identical over time. There are various approaches to solve this puzzle. Aristotle, for example, distinguished between accidental and essential properties of a thing. Then, the change of an accidental property preserves the thing’s identity, whereas the change of an essential property leads to a new thing. This solution of the puzzle depends on a clear distinction between accidental and essential properties.
    [Show full text]
  • FORMAL ONTOLOGY in INFORMATION SYSTEMS Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications
    FORMAL ONTOLOGY IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications FAIA covers all aspects of theoretical and applied artificial intelligence research in the form of monographs, doctoral dissertations, textbooks, handbooks and proceedings volumes. The FAIA series contains several sub-series, including “Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases” and “Knowledge-Based Intelligent Engineering Systems”. It also includes the biennial ECAI, the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, proceedings volumes, and other ECCAI – the European Coordinating Committee on Artificial Intelligence – sponsored publications. An editorial panel of internationally well-known scholars is appointed to provide a high quality selection. Series Editors: J. Breuker, R. Dieng-Kuntz, N. Guarino, J.N. Kok, J. Liu, R. López de Mántaras, R. Mizoguchi, M. Musen, S.K. Pal and N. Zhong Volume 183 Recently published in this series Vol. 182. H. Fujita and I. Zualkernan (Eds.), New Trends in Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques – Proceedings of the seventh SoMeT_08 Vol. 181. A. Zgrzywa, K. Choroś and A. Siemiński (Eds.), New Trends in Multimedia and Network Information Systems Vol. 180. M. Virvou and T. Nakamura (Eds.), Knowledge-Based Software Engineering – Proceedings of the Eighth Joint Conference on Knowledge-Based Software Engineering Vol. 179. A. Cesta and N. Fakotakis (Eds.), STAIRS 2008 – Proceedings of the Fourth Starting AI Researchers’ Symposium Vol. 178. M. Ghallab et al. (Eds.), ECAI 2008 – 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence Vol. 177. C. Soares et al. (Eds.), Applications of Data Mining in E-Business and Finance Vol. 176. P. Zaraté et al. (Eds.), Collaborative Decision Making: Perspectives and Challenges Vol. 175. A. Briggle, K. Waelbers and P.A.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Ontology - a New Discipline Between Philosophy, Formal Logic, and Artificial Intelligence
    Formal Ontology - A New Discipline Between Philosophy, Formal Logic, and Artificial Intelligence Heinrich Herre Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Statistik und Epidemiologie Medizinische Fakultät, Universität Leipzig Kybernetik, Logik, Semiotik Philosophische Sichtweisen, Abhandlungen der Leibniz-Sozietät der Wissenschaften, Bad 40, Hrsg. K. Fuchs-Kittowski und R. E. Zimmermann, p. 375-389, trafo Wissenschaftsverlag, ISBN: 978-3-86464-095-7 Abstract Research in ontology has in recent years become widespread in the field of information systems, in various areas of sciences, in business, in economy, and in industry. The importance of ontologies is increasingly recognized in fields diverse as in e-commerce, semantic web, enterprise, information integration, library and information science, qualitative modeling of physical systems, natural language processing, knowledge engineering, and databases. An ontology supplies a unifying framework for communication, it establishes a basis for knowledge organization and knowledge representation and contributes to theory formation and modeling of a specific domain. In the current paper we outline basic principles of formal ontology, being an evolving science which integrates aspects of philosophy, formal logic, and artificial intelligence. A central feature of formal ontology is the onto-axiomatic method which includes as a core component a top level ontology. We summarize the principles of the top level ontology GFO (General Formal Ontology) which is being developed at the university of Leipzig. The various sources of formal ontology are explicated and exemplified, and it is demonstrated that formal ontology is more than an eclectic aggregrate of the mentioned research areas. 1. Introduction We use the term formal ontology (FO) to name an area of research which is becoming a science similar as formal logic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Domain Shared by Computational and Digital Ontology: a Phenomenological Exploration and Analysis Bradley Wendell Compton
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2009 The Domain Shared by Computational and Digital Ontology: A Phenomenological Exploration and Analysis Bradley Wendell Compton Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF INFORMATION THE DOMAIN SHARED BY COMPUTATIONAL AND DIGITAL ONTOLOGY: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS By BRADLEY WENDELL COMPTON A Dissertation submitted to the College of Information in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2009 The members of the committee approve the dissertation of Bradley Compton defended on April 22, 2009. ______________________________ Kathleen Burnett Professor Directing Dissertation _______________________________ Russell Dancy Outside Committee Member _______________________________ Gary Burnett Committee Member ______________________________ Wayne Wiegand Committee Member Approved: ________________________________________ Larry Dennis, Dean, College of Information The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members. ii To my parents Wendell and Judy and to the God of my understanding without whom none of my achievements would be possible. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to thank and express gratitude to the mentors, friends, and loved ones who helped me complete this research. Kathy Burnett has been my major professor and patiently watched me struggle to develop and articulate this project from the beginning. Gary Burnett, Wayne Wiegand, and Keith Belton also served me well as committee members. Russ Dancy, my outside committee member, knew and taught me as an undergraduate philosophy major. Fred Fonseca and Rafael Capurro, with whom I met face-to-face, inspired me with their work and mentored me along the way.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Geospatial Semantic Information Modeling and Elicitation Approaches
    International Journal of Geo-Information Review A Review of Geospatial Semantic Information Modeling and Elicitation Approaches Margarita Kokla 1,* and Eric Guilbert 2 1 School of Rural and Surveying Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 15780 Athens, Greece 2 Department of Geomatics Sciences, Université Laval, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 1 November 2019; Accepted: 27 February 2020; Published: 1 March 2020 Abstract: The present paper provides a review of two research topics that are central to geospatial semantics: information modeling and elicitation. The first topic deals with the development of ontologies at different levels of generality and formality, tailored to various needs and uses. The second topic involves a set of processes that aim to draw out latent knowledge from unstructured or semi-structured content: semantic-based extraction, enrichment, search, and analysis. These processes focus on eliciting a structured representation of information in various forms such as: semantic metadata, links to ontology concepts, a collection of topics, etc. The paper reviews the progress made over the last five years in these two very active areas of research. It discusses the problems and the challenges faced, highlights the types of semantic information formalized and extracted, as well as the methodologies and tools used, and identifies directions for future research. Keywords: geospatial ontologies; domain ontologies; task ontologies; application ontologies; ontology design pattern; semantic information extraction; semantic enrichment; semantic-based search 1. Introduction Geospatial semantics has been at the center of research over the last 20 years. The semantic problems occurring during the exchange, reuse, and integration of heterogeneous spatial data and the need to achieve semantic interoperability were among the first research challenges faced by the Geographic Information Science (GIScience) community [1].
    [Show full text]