150 likes | 287 Views
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
E N D
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 • Ontology-schmology!
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
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...
One who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart, and one who remains a socialist at 40 has no head.
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.
...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.
But this could be good! • Less arguments • Common language for discussion • People would start to think similarly • Easier to share information
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.
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...
So if not ontologies, then what? (1) • Informal • Dynamic • Do not require conformity • Human semantics can do it....
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?
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...