1 / 15

Ontology-Schmology!

Ontology-Schmology!. Dr Kristin Stock Centre for Geospatial Science University of Nottingham. Ontology-Schmology. Ontology: Formal specification Shared conceptualisation Do not reflect human cognitive models: Highly formal and precise Shared view, so enforce conformance

bruno
Download Presentation

Ontology-Schmology!

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ontology-Schmology! Dr Kristin Stock Centre for Geospatial Science University of Nottingham

  2. Ontology-Schmology • Ontology: • Formal specification • Shared conceptualisation • Do not reflect human cognitive models: • Highly formal and precise • Shared view, so enforce conformance • Ontology-schmology!

  3. Schmology #1: Precise and Formal Semantics • Current ontology languages require precise definition • But in reality, human semantics and not fixed, and sometimes not precise • Concept definition depends on: • Context • Purpose • Individual characteristics, background, education

  4. But humans are informal... • Some humans are flexible in the definition of their concepts (but not all) • We all change our views over time, with age, change in living circumstances, education...

  5. One who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart, and one who remains a socialist at 40 has no head.

  6. ==>

  7. Schmology #2: Shared Semantics • Ontologies are shared conceptualisations. • An information community share some concepts. • But we are all individuals, by virtue of our differences. • We all have different world views.

  8. ...other communities may adopt... • More pressure to adopt other views because of large effort in developing ontologies. • Will adopt unless divergence between world views is too great to accommodate.

  9. But this could be good! • Less arguments • Common language for discussion • People would start to think similarly • Easier to share information

  10. Why is this bad? (1) • Reduces diversity • Less originality in thinking • Innovative thoughts come from: • different ways of looking at the world • friction between world views/thinking. • Particularly for scientific development.

  11. Why is this bad? (2) • Important for foundational ontologies => Different ways of looking at the foundations of the world are important for revolutionary scientific developments. • Sapir-Whorf hypothesis linking language and thought...

  12. So if not ontologies, then what? (1) • Informal • Dynamic • Do not require conformity • Human semantics can do it....

  13. So if not ontologies, then what? (2) • The way of the future is not yet clear • Some options: • Natural Semantic Metalanguage • Modal/fuzzy logics? • BDI? • Others?

  14. On the road to nowhere? • Ontologies are a useful stepping stone until we have better answers • But they are not the answer • How should be spend our energy? • Supporting the stepping stone? • Finding the next step on the road...

  15. The brave new world of informal semantics awaits!!!

More Related