Modelação ontológica: uma perspetiva

1. Modulação ontológica: uma perspetiva Luís Miguel Oliveira Machado lmmachado@yahoo.com 2021 | julho New Mexico, EUA

2. Hermeneutical Ontology: • The world is only experienced in the historical act of communicating and there is no meaningful way to distinguish what the world is (ontology) from the interpretation (hermeneutic) inherent in this linguistic act. Dahlstrom, D. (2010) Hermeneutical Ontology, p.414 • Ontology as inference to the best explanation: • Some phenomenon is noted. A hypothesis is proposed that, if true, would explain it. Then, to the extent that the hypothesis offers a better explanation than its competitors, we have some reason to suppose that it is true and that any entities it postulates really do exist. Swoyer, C. (1999) How Ontology Might Be Possible: Explanation and Inference in Metaphysics, p.103 • Ontology deals with what, at least in principle, can be categorized (objectified, i.e. subsumed under distinguishable categories). • Metaphysics deals with the problem of the totality; generally speaking, there is no way to exclude that the totality could present aspects that we may forever be unable to rationalize, i.e. submit to a rational analysis. Poli, R. (2010) Ontology: The Categorial Stance, p.1

3. Ontologia • enquanto área de estudo procede à análise do que existe e à sua organização relacional; • enquanto teoria é o construto resultante da análise ontológica necessário para o desenvolvimento de qualquer sistema ontológico; • enquanto artefacto de representação (SOC)

4. ontologias computacionais • “Ontology as technology, focuses on those same [philosophical] questions but the intention is distinct: to create engineering models of reality, artifacts which can be used by software.” • “Our definition of ‘ontology’ is the following: a representational artifact, comprising a taxonomy as proper part, whose representations are intended to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and certain relations between them.” • “Ontologies are a kind of KOS that present the highest degree of semantic richness, as they allow to establish a great number of relations between terms, and provide attributes for each class.” • “An ontology is a formal, explicit specification of a shared conceptualization.” Poli, R. & Obrst, L. (2010) The Interplay Between Ontology as Categorial Analysis and Ontology as Technology, p.1 Arp, R.; Smith, B. & Spear, A. (2015) Building ontologies with Basic Formal Ontology, p.1 Biagetti, M. (2020) Ontologies (as knowledge organization systems), sec. 3.1 Studer, R.; Benjamins, V.R. & Fensel, D. (1998) Knowledge Engineering: Principles and Methods, p.184

5. Ontologia • enquanto área de estudo procede à análise do que existe e à sua organização relacional; • enquanto teoria é o construto resultante da análise ontológica necessário para o desenvolvimento de qualquer sistema ontológico; • enquanto artefacto de representação (SOC) segue uma de duas abordagens genéricas: • como uma modelação de significados; • como uma modelação de entidades representadas pelos significados.

6. Nem todos os artefactos de representação, designados por ontologias, podem ser considerados modelos ontológicos.

7. Integrative Levels Classification(ILC) • a Forms • b Spacetime • c Branes • d Energy (wave-particles) • e Atoms • f Molecules • g Continuum bodies • h Celestial bodies • i Rocks • j Land • k Genes • l Bacteria (prokaryotes) • m Organisms (eukaryote) • n Populations • o Instincts • p Consciousness • q Language • r Rituals • s Communities • t Polities • u Enterprises • v Technologies • w Artifacts • x Artworks • y Knowledge “Ontology approach -an understanding of what things exist in the world and how these are related.” “Epistemology approach - an understanding of how scholars study things.” Szostak, R.; Gnoli, C. & López-Huertas, M. (2016) Interdisciplinary Knowledge Organization, p.72 Universal Decimal Classification(UDC) • 0 Science And Knowledge. Organization. Computer Science. Information. Documentation. Librarianship. Institutions. Publications • 1 Philosophy. Psychology • 2 Religion. Theology • 3 Social Sciences • 5 Mathematics. Natural Sciences • 6 Applied Sciences. Medicine. Technology • 7 The Arts. Recreation. Entertainment. Sport • 8 Language. Linguistics. Literature • 9 Geography. Biography. History

8. “The approach taken in this book may be seen as a middle ground between present classifications and formal ontologies: it calls for adherence to logical rules in developing hierarchies of things and relationships, but does not demand that concepts be defined precisely in terms of some logic. Indeed, we have repeatedly noted that some degree of ambiguity may be unavoidable but is acceptable for the purposes of classification.” Szostak, R.; Gnoli, C. & López-Huertas, M. (2016) Interdisciplinary Knowledge Organization, p.87 “Definitions are perhaps the most important component of ontologies, since it is through definitions that an ontology draws its ability to support consistent use across multiple communities and disciplines, and to support computational reasoning.” Arp, R.; Smith, B. & Spear, A. (2015) Building ontologies with Basic Formal Ontology, p.36

9. “Definition: A Well is a permitted or actual drilled hole in the ground designed to exchange (or facilitate the exchange of) fluids between a subsurface reservoir and the surface (or another reservoir), or to enable the detection and measurement of rock properties.” What exist? The document Professional Petroleum Data Management Association (2014) What is a Well?, p.4 What exist? The well. and the location. Oil and Gas Well Statistics for Kansas 2001 abr. 1

10. O caso do projeto europeu Airbus A380 (dez.2000 – out.2007) 2006 out. 05 2006 out. 30 2006 dez. 11 2006 dez. 05

11. Mario Heinen 2006 out. 19-20

12. Modelo ontológico • Apresenta definições precisas e ontologicamente consistentes.

13. relations in RDF-based computational ontologies: #B #A (event) organization committee member (event) organization committee member person person “The logic conclusion from the combined ontologies would be that any doctor, e.g. Dr. Douglas Ross, is also an (event) organization committee member.” is-a is-a doctor is-a doctor is-a doctor #A  #B is-a Dr. Douglas Ross Kless, D., Lindenthal, J., Milton, S., & Kazmierczak, E. (2011) Interoperability of knowledge organization systems with and through ontologies, sec.2.1

14. entity occurrent • some top-level types • of Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) continuant independent continuant generically dependent continuant specifically dependent continuant realizable entity material entity role object • is_a(subtype of) (event) organization committee member • domain level person doctor • types • instance_of(at time t) • (is_a) instance_of • instances Dr. Douglas Ross Dr. Gregory House

15. living bean human bean animal vegetal face hand human bean finger nose eye mouth man woman finger-nail lips taxonomy partonomy is_a (subtype) part_of

16. human bean living bean animal vegetal human bean hand finger finger-nail man woman partonomy taxonomy face mouth nose is_a (subtype) lips eye Parente de Oliveira, J. M., & Smith, B. (2017) A Visual Representation of Part-Whole Relationships in BFO-Conformant Ontologies, sec.4

17. living bean • types animal vegetal human bean is_a (subtype) man woman • instance_of • instances

18. living bean human bean • types animal vegetal hand finger finger-nail is_a (subtype) man woman • instance_of face mouth • instances nose lips part_of eye Hugh Laurie

19. Modelo ontológico • Apresenta definições precisas e ontologicamente consistentes. • Diferencia claramente as instancias dos tipos (ou classes), nomeadamente no que respeita às relações entre ambos. • Classifica com base nos traços pertencentes às respetivas entidades, i.e., às suas características intrínsecas. • Apresenta definições precisas e ontologicamente consistentes. • Diferencia claramente as instancias dos tipos (ou classes), nomeadamente no que respeita às relações entre ambos.

20. “Classification has often been defined as bringing like things together (and thus separating unlike things).” “The problem is that things cannot be similar in an objective way. Any object is similar to another object in some ways and dissimilar in other ways.” “Consider Figure 1, the items may be classified according to color or shape. None of those properties is objectively more important than the other.” Hjørland, B. (2019) Classification, sec.4.2 Figure 1 • Não haverá forma de contornar a relatividade dos critérios?

21. pertencentes ao Imperador, • embalsamados, • amestrados, • leitões, • sereias, • fabulosos, • cães soltos, • incluídos nesta classificação, • que se agitam como loucos, • inumeráveis, • desenhados com um finíssimo pincel de pêlo de camelo, • etcétera, • que acabam de quebrar o vaso, • que de longe parecem moscas. Segundo a enciclopédia Empório Celestial de Conhecimentos Benévolos os animais se dividem em: Borges, J.L. (1952) Outrasinquisições O que perturba neste fragmento do imaginário de Borges, o que nos coloca numa situação de desamparo, de inqualificável mal-estar, é o facto de ele nos confrontar com classificações insólitas, completamente estranhas às categorias do nosso pensamento. Pombo, O. (2002) Da classificação dos seres à classificação dos saberes, p.1

22. In the NCIT [National Cancer Institute Thesaurus, USA] the entry patient has two subtypes: the entry animal splits into: cancer patient, outpatient. • invertebrate, • laboratory animal, • vertebrate, • poikilotherms. role quality role role • [pacientes ambulatórios] quality quality a) b) • [poiquilotérmicos: animais de temperatura variável (vulgo animais de "sangue frio")] d) a) c) b) Jansen, L. (2008) Classifications, p.163

23. color AND shape cancer patient outpatient data: “close-world” a’) cancer inpatient b’) cancer outpatient domain: “open-world”

24. “Applying a theory: An observed phenomenon can be matched with the classes of the theory. Inferences for all classes to which the phenomenon is matched can be used to predict additional properties (to those used for matching) of the phenomenon.” “Testing a theory: Applying a theory requires sufficient information (properties) to identify classes to which a phenomenon can be assigned, or to determine whether or not the phenomenon belongs to specific classes.” ? cor • tipos de linhas (retas, curvas); • numero de lados; • numero e amplitude dos ângulos internos; • … forma Parsons, J., & Wand, Y. (2013) Extending Classification Principles from Information Modeling to Other Disciplines, p.263

25. Modelo ontológico • Apresenta definições precisas e ontologicamente consistentes. • Diferencia claramente as instancias dos tipos (ou classes), nomeadamente no que respeita às relações entre ambos. • Classifica com base nos traços pertencentes às respetivas entidades, i.e., às suas características intrínsecas. • Não representa os dados de uma base em particular mas os tipos de entidade existentes no domínio ao qual os dados reportam.

26. Gene_Ontology  part_of biological process  is_a physiological process  is_a metabolism  is_a nucleobase, nucleoside, nucleotide, and nucleic acid metabolism  is_a transcription  is_a transcription, DNA-dependent  part_of transcription initiation mentioned: it should be regarded as the term ‘biological process’ is part of the Gene Ontology’s hierarchy of terms Gráfico da Gene Ontology tal como foi originalmente escrito em Junho de 2005 posteriormente alterado com a remoção do último “elo”. the terms should be regarded as, e.g., the type physiological process is a subtype of the type biological process used: “Thus use and mention of ‘biological process’ are here mixed (the problem has since been corrected).” Johansson, I. (2008) Bioinformatics and Biological Reality, p.304

27. “Concepts, the units of objectivated knowledge, clearly are not the same as the conceptualized phenomena themselves, but are representations of phenomena as accurate and reliable as the present state of knowledge allows.” “Concepts, the units of objectivated knowledge, clearly are not the same as the conceptualized phenomena themselves, but are representations of phenomena as accurate and reliable as the present state of knowledge allows.” Gnoli, C. (2018) Mentefacts as a missing level in theory of Information Science, p.1238

28. nível #1 o que existe na realidade nível #2 cognição (conceitos) nível #3 modelo ontológico usa para representar

29. nível #3 nível #2 nível #1 modelo ontológico usa para representar cognição (conceitos) o que existe na realidade “especificação de uma conceitualização” representa como validar?

30. “Perception is universally human, determined by man's psychophysical equipment. Conceptualization is culture-bound because it depends on the symbolic systems we apply. These symbolic systems are largely determined by linguistic factors, the structure of the language applied.” “Perception and experienced categories need not mirror the ‘real’ world; they must, however, be isomorphic to it to such degree as to allow orientation and thus survival.” von Bertalanffy, L. (1955) An Essay on the Relativity of Categories, pp.254, 257

31. “Ontological theses are assayed, not by measuring them directly against reality, but by considering their relative power. One thesis trumps another if it is implied by an overall ontology that does a better job of making sense of our experiences of the world in light of our best scientific theories.” conceitualismo puro nominalismo extremo perspetivismo ontológico realismo ingénuo Heil, J. (2015) Universals in a world of particulars, p.122

32. “The truthmaker theory rests on the thesis that the link between a true judgment and that in the world to which it corresponds is not a one-to-one but rather a one-to-many relation. This is the thesis to the effect that singular reference is marked by vagueness of a sort that is best understood in supervaluationist terms.” • “The relations between an object and a cell corresponds to one or other of the ways in which, when we make a true judgment, we bring about a corresponding partition of the reality to which our judgment corresponds. And while partitions, and the cells by which they are constituted, are artefacts of our cognition, when once a given partition exists, it is, for each cell in the partition and for each object in reality, an objective matter whether or not that object is located in that cell.” Smith, B. & Brogaard, B. (2000) A Unified Theory of Truth and Reference, pp.49, 77 • A teoria utiliza o “método de supervalorização” ampliado pela introdução do “contextualismo referencial” que toma em consideração a “granularidade” dos contextos para fazer face à imprecisão envolvida na referência singular.

33. Modelo ontológico • Apresenta definições precisas e ontologicamente consistentes. • Diferencia claramente as instancias dos tipos (ou classes), nomeadamente no que respeita às relações entre ambos. • Classifica com base nos traços pertencentes às respetivas entidades, i.e., às suas características intrínsecas. • Não representa os dados de uma base em particular mas os tipos de entidade existentes no domínio ao qual os dados reportam. • Usa as representações cognitivas como um meio para representar as entidades existentes no respetivo domínio.

34. Modelo ontológico • Apresenta definições precisas e ontologicamente consistentes. • Diferencia claramente as instancias dos tipos (ou classes), nomeadamente no que respeita às relações entre ambos. • Classifica com base nos traços pertencentes às respetivas entidades, i.e., às suas características intrínsecas. • Não representa os dados de uma base em particular mas os tipos de entidade existentes no domínio ao qual os dados reportam. • Usa as representações cognitivas como um meio para representar as entidades existentes no respetivo domínio. • Nem todas os artefactos de representação vulgarmente chamados ontologia satisfazem estas condições.

35. referências (1/3) • Almeida, M. B. (2013). Revisiting ontologies: A necessary clarification. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(8), 1532–2890. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22861 • Almeida, M. B. (2020). Ontologia em CIência da Informação: Teoria e prática (Vol. 1). CRV. • Arp, R., Smith, B., & Spear, A. D. (2015). Building ontologies with Basic Formal Ontology. MIT Press. • Biagetti, M. T. (2020). Ontologies (as knowledge organization systems). In B. Hjørland & C. Gnoli (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization (2020-08–31). ISKO. https://www.isko.org/cyclo/ontologies • Calleam Consulting Ltd. (2011.o4.11). Why do projects fail?: Airbus – A380. http://calleam.com/WTPF/?p=4700&utm_content=buffer24c7e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer • Dahlstrom, D. O. (2010). Hermeneutic Ontology. In R. Poli & J. Seibt (Eds.), Theory and Applications of Ontology: Philosophical Perspectives (pp. 395–415). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8845-1 • Guarino, N., & Giaretta, P. (1995). Ontologies and Knowledge Bases: Towards a Terminological Clarification. In N. J. I. Mars (Ed.), Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases (pp. 25–32). IOS Press. • Gnoli, C. (2011). Ontological foundations in knowledge organization: The theory of integrative levels applied in citation order. Scire, 17(1), 29–34. • Gnoli, C. (2018). Mentefacts as a missing level in theory of information science. Journal of Documentation, 74(6), 1226–1242. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04-2018-0054 • Heil, J. (2015). Universals in a world of particulars. In G. Galluzzo & M. J. Loux (Eds.), The problem of universals in contemporary philosophy (pp. 133–155). Cambridge University Press. • Hjørland, B. (2019). Classification. In B. Hjørland & C. Gnoli (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization (2019.01.29). ISKO. http://www.isko.org/cyclo/classification

36. referências (2/3) • Jansen, L. (2008). Classifications. In K. Munn & B. Smith (Eds.), Applied Ontology: An Introduction (pp. 159–172). Ontos Verlag. • Johansson, I. (2008). Bioinformatics and Biological Reality. In K. Munn & B. Smith (Eds.), Applied Ontology: An Introduction (pp. 285–309). Ontos Verlag. • Kless, D., Lindenthal, J., Milton, S., & Kazmierczak, E. (2011). Interoperability of knowledge organization systems with and through ontologies. In A. Slavic & E. Civallero (Eds.), Universal Decimal Classification Classification and ontology: Formal approaches and access to knowledge (pp. 55–74). Ergon Verlag. • Machado, L. M. O. (2021). Ontologies in Knowledge Organization. Encyclopedia, 1(1), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia1010015 • Munn, K. (2008). What is Ontology for? In K. Munn & B. Smith (Eds.), Applied Ontology: An Introduction (pp. 7–19). Ontos Verlag. • Parsons, J., & Wand, Y. (2013). Extending Classification Principles from Information Modeling to Other Disciplines. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(5), 245–273. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00332 • Poli, R. (2010). Ontology: The Categorial Stance. In R. Poli & J. Seibt (Eds.), Theory and Applications of Ontology: Philosophical Perspectives (pp. 1–22). Springer Netherlands. • Studer, R., Benjamins, V. R., & Fensel, D. (1998). Knowledge Engineering: Principles and Methods. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 25(1), 161–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-023x(97)00 • Parente de Oliveira, J. M., & Smith, B. (2017). A Visual Representation of Part-Whole Relationships in BFO-Conformant Ontologies. In Á. Rocha, A. M. Correia, H. Adeli, L. P. Reis, & S. Costanzo (Eds.), Recent Advances in Information Systems and Technologies (Vol. 569, pp. 184–194). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56535-4_19 • Poli, R. (1996). Ontology for knowledge organization. Knowledge organization and change, 5, 313–319. • Poli, R., & Obrst, L. (2010). The Interplay Between Ontology as Categorial Analysis and Ontology as Technology. In R. Poli, M. Healy, & A. Kameas (Eds.), Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications (pp. 1–26). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8847-5_1

37. referências (3/3) • Pombo, O. (2002). Da classificação dos seres à classificação dos saberes. Instituto de Educação, Universidade de Lisboa, 1–15. • Smith, B. (2003). Ontology. In L. Floridi (Ed.), Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information (pp. 155–166). Blackwell. • Smith, B. (2018.02.17). Ontology for Systems Engineering - Part 1: Introduction to Ontology. https://youtu.be/QGmwIWmyJeg • Smith, B., & Brogaard, B. (2000). A Unified Theory of Truth and Reference. Logique et Analyse, 43(169/170), 49–93. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44074519 • Swoyer, C. (1999). How Ontology Might Be Possible: Explanation and Inference in Metaphysics. Midwest Studies In Philosophy, 23(1), 100–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4975.00006 • Szostak, R., Gnoli, C., & López-Huertas, M. (2016). Interdisciplinary Knowledge Organization. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30148-8 • von Bertalanffy, L. (1955). An Essay on the Relativity of Categories. Philosophy of Science, 22(4), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1086/287440