Misplaced Pages

Conceptualization (information science): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:25, 3 August 2013 editSnowded (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers37,634 edits →References: in text citations should be used unless you intend multiple use← Previous edit Revision as of 03:27, 3 August 2013 edit undoSnowded (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers37,634 edits relevance to information science needs to be supported by third party source, also one view should not be stated as the truthNext edit →
Line 3: Line 3:


As a higher level abstraction, a conceptualization facilitates the discussion and comparison of its various onotologies. Each ontology based upon the same overarching conceptualization maps the conceptualization into specific elements and their relationships. The question then arises as to how to describe the 'conceptualization' in terms that can encompass multiple 'ontological commitments'. This issue has been called the 'Tower of Babel' problem, that is, how can persons used to one ontology talk with others using a different ontology?<ref name=Smith/><ref name=Harmelen/> This problem is easily understood, but a general resolution is not at hand. It can be a 'bottom-up' or a 'top-down' approach, or something in between.<ref name=Alignment/> As a higher level abstraction, a conceptualization facilitates the discussion and comparison of its various onotologies. Each ontology based upon the same overarching conceptualization maps the conceptualization into specific elements and their relationships. The question then arises as to how to describe the 'conceptualization' in terms that can encompass multiple 'ontological commitments'. This issue has been called the 'Tower of Babel' problem, that is, how can persons used to one ontology talk with others using a different ontology?<ref name=Smith/><ref name=Harmelen/> This problem is easily understood, but a general resolution is not at hand. It can be a 'bottom-up' or a 'top-down' approach, or something in between.<ref name=Alignment/>

An example of the problems encountered in comparing ontologies is found in translation between human languages. Ostensibly, as all humans live in the same world and have the same physical senses with which to see the world, one might expect to correlate human activity with language and thereby make rules for translation. However, that view is utopian because humans act upon cultural interpretation of their surroundings, and relating two cultures is an entirely different matter than understanding what term in both represents a 'rabbit'.<ref name=Quine/><ref name=Wright/> Some suggest that humans think in 'mentalese', but so far we don't have access to this level of conceptualization.<ref name=Aydede/>


However, in more artificial situations, such as information systems, the idea of a 'conceptualization' and 'ontological commitment' to various ontologies that realize the 'conceptualization' is possible.<ref name=Guarino/><ref name=Guarino1/> The formation of a conceptualization involves these steps:<ref name=Hadzic/> However, in more artificial situations, such as information systems, the idea of a 'conceptualization' and 'ontological commitment' to various ontologies that realize the 'conceptualization' is possible.<ref name=Guarino/><ref name=Guarino1/> The formation of a conceptualization involves these steps:<ref name=Hadzic/>
Line 41: Line 39:
<ref name=Harmelen> <ref name=Harmelen>
{{cite web |title=Ontology mapping: a way out of the medical tower of babel |author=Frank van Harmelen |url=http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/aime05/presentations/Ontology%20Mapping%20A%20Way%20out%20of%20the%20Medical%20Tower%20of%20Babel.pdf}} {{cite web |title=Ontology mapping: a way out of the medical tower of babel |author=Frank van Harmelen |url=http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/aime05/presentations/Ontology%20Mapping%20A%20Way%20out%20of%20the%20Medical%20Tower%20of%20Babel.pdf}}
</ref>

<ref name=Quine>
{{cite book |title=Word and Object |author=Willard v. O. Quine |url=http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/kk3n/80-300/quine-wo.pdf |year=2013 |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=9780262518314 |edition=New }} Quine raised the issue of translation and ] of translation in a series of books and papers.
</ref> </ref>


<ref name=Smith> <ref name=Smith>
{{cite book |chapter= Chapter 11: Ontology |author=Barry Smith |url=http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/ontology_PIC.pdf |title=Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information |publisher=Blackwell |year=2003 |pages=155-166 |editor=Luciano Floridi, ed |isbn=0631229183 }} {{cite book |chapter= Chapter 11: Ontology |author=Barry Smith |url=http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/ontology_PIC.pdf |title=Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information |publisher=Blackwell |year=2003 |pages=155-166 |editor=Luciano Floridi, ed |isbn=0631229183 }}
</ref>

<ref name=Wright>
{{cite book |chapter=Chapter 16: The indeterminacy of translation |author=Crispin Wright |title= A Companion to the Philosophy of Language |editor=Bob Hale, Crispin Wright, eds |year=1999 |isbn=0631213260 |page=397 |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=sGIU9VirtZEC}} "Quine's contention that translation is indeterminate has been among the most widely discussed and controversial theses in modern analytical philosophy."
</ref> </ref>


Revision as of 03:27, 3 August 2013

For 'concept', see Concept (disambiguation) In information science and computer science, a conceptualization is an abstract simplified view of some selected part of the world, containing the objects, concepts, and other entities that are presumed of interest for some particular purpose and the relationships between them.

As a higher level abstraction, a conceptualization facilitates the discussion and comparison of its various onotologies. Each ontology based upon the same overarching conceptualization maps the conceptualization into specific elements and their relationships. The question then arises as to how to describe the 'conceptualization' in terms that can encompass multiple 'ontological commitments'. This issue has been called the 'Tower of Babel' problem, that is, how can persons used to one ontology talk with others using a different ontology? This problem is easily understood, but a general resolution is not at hand. It can be a 'bottom-up' or a 'top-down' approach, or something in between.

However, in more artificial situations, such as information systems, the idea of a 'conceptualization' and 'ontological commitment' to various ontologies that realize the 'conceptualization' is possible. The formation of a conceptualization involves these steps:

  • specification of the conceptualization
  • ontology concepts: every definition involves the definitions of other terms
  • relationships between the concepts: this step maps conceptual relationships onto the ontology structure
  • groups of concepts: this step may lead to the creation of sub-ontologies
  • formal description of ontology commitments, for example, to make them computer readable

A trivial example of moving conception into a language leading to a variety of ontologies is the expression of a process in pseudocode (a strictly structured form of ordinary language) leading to implementation in several different formal computer languages like Lisp or Fortran. The pseudocode makes it easier to understand the instructions and compare implementations, but the formal languages make possible the compilation of the ideas as computer instructions.

Another example is mathematics, where a very general formulation (the analog of a conceptualization) is illustrated with 'applications' that are more specialized examples. For instance, aspects of a function space can be illustrated using a vector space or a topological space that introduce interpretations of the 'elements' of the conceptualization and additional relationships between them but preserve the connections required in the function space.

References

  1. Barry Smith (2003). "Chapter 11: Ontology". In Luciano Floridi, ed (ed.). Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information (PDF). Blackwell. pp. 155–166. ISBN 0631229183. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)
  2. Frank van Harmelen. "Ontology mapping: a way out of the medical tower of babel" (PDF).
  3. In information science, one approach to finding a conceptualization (or avoiding it and using an automated comparison) is called 'ontology alignment' or 'ontology matching'. See for example, Jérôme. Euzenat, Pavel Shvaiko (2007). Ontology Matching. Springer. ISBN 3540496122.
  4. Nicola Guarino (1998). "Formal Ontology in Information Systems". In Nicola Guarino, ed (ed.). Formal Ontology in Information Systems (Proceedings of FOIS '98, Trento, Italy). IOS Press. pp. 3 ff. ISBN 978-90-5199-399-8. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)
  5. Nicola Guarino, Massimiliano Carrara, Pierdaniele Giaretta (1994). "Formalizing ontological commitments" (PDF). AAAI. 94: 560–567.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. Maja Hadzic, Pornpit Wongthongtham, Elizabeth Chang, Tharam Dillon (2009). "Chapter 7: Design methodology for integrated systems - Part I (Ontology design)". Ontology-Based Multi-Agent Systems. Springer. pp. 111 ff. ISBN 364201903X.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Aydede" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Further reading

External links

This article incorporates material from the Citizendium article "Conceptualization (information science)", which is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License but not under the GFDL.

Categories: