Using Semantic Technologies to support Philosophers : Ontological Issues Michele Pasin, Enrico Motta...

Using Semantic Technologies to support Philosophers : Ontological Issues

Michele Pasin, Enrico Motta{ m.pasin, e.motta} @ open.ac.uk

“A storytelling system is not a magic box which creatively makes up a story when asked (that would

be called a parent), but a system of specially stored and organized narrative elements which the

computer retrieves and assembles according to some expressed form of narration.”

From automatic storytellers to “learning pathways” in the Semantic Web

Kevin Brooks, Do Story Agents Use Rocking Chairs? The Theory and Implementation of One Model for Computational Narrative, in ACM Multimedia, 1996, Boston MA, USA

….example….

Ludwig Wittgenstein 1889-1951, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Max Black 1909-1988, Commentary on the Tractatus

ph.of mathematics

ph.of language

ph.of logic

epistemologylogicism

platonism

realism

empiricism

formalism

Cambridge, 1920-1930

B. Russell, 1872-1970

G.E.Moore, 1873-1948F. Ramsey, 1903-1930

PhiloSURFical project: overview

- Tool for contextual browsing / navigation- prototyped with Wittgenstein’s Tractatus- initially with an internal KB- then by ‘leveraging’ structured data on the SW

- Pedagogical framework: constructivism- learning through active discovery of relevant resources- attempts to tackle the hard problem of “situating” the learning of abstract concepts (i.e. “descriptions of the world” in Laurillard terms, 1993)- support for analysis and interpretation skills development (Carusi, 2003)

PhiloSURFical : system design

import/exportdata

Query SPARQL

endpoints

e.g.

HistoricalInterpretativeTheoretical Textual

dysambiguationcontrastanalogy

causation ..etc.

PhiloSURFical ontology: overview

- Major requirement: semantic model capable of guaranteeing the reconstruction of the historyof ideas, for both the practical and theoretical domain of thinkers

- Decision to base it on the CIDOC-CRM model- 1996 ICOM initiative, 2006 ISO standard (version 4.2)- Recognized standard for cultural heritage domains (esp. for museum resources)- Powerful event-centered design

- Integration of various models- AKT publications sub-ontology (very detailed and axiomatized)- FRBR information-object specs (very famous standard for librarians - as bibliographic resources are central for us too!)- DOLCE’s information-object model (capable of separating 3 dimensions of an IO = content-form-implementation)

PhiloSURFical ontology: example

Modelling patterns for navigation:

- Purpose: interpreting a (philosophical) concept/text, so to create applicable formal models for navigation

- they open up new senses which can be used for exploring a subject domain

- Strategy: taking advantage of natural language ambiguities, overlapping word senses, hidden categories in language

-the granularity of the ontology is crucial!

- Disclaimer: different from “normal” ontology modelling patterns!- not focused on architectural issues- not involved in the ontology creation process- they are not prescriptive!

Modeling pattern I: how many rationalisms?

- Problem: natural language often hides type-differences

- Tip: taking advantage of natural language ambiguities, so to present resources which are potentially explicative

- Advantage: it allows navigations of ontologically distant entities (belief-groups, views, events)

Pattern I: how many rationalisms?

“This theory is clearly a new and re-shaped rationalism” “Descartes was one of the founders of modern rationalism”

“Throughout history, the attacks of rationalism against empiricism has diminished”

Pattern II : various granularities for theories

- Concerns the “idea” branch of the ontology- specifically, the types of “viewpoints”

-Taxonomies of viewpoints? - Dolce: not suited for philosophical ideas- Cyc: very convoluted, unusable- Wordnet: flat hierarchy

- Allows navigations which give viewpoints a “theoretical”context

- e.g. views an author had, within a problem area, consistent with a school of thought etc..

Pattern II: not all views are theories!

“Wittgenstein’s philosophy, differently from Frege’s one, deals also with problems typical of aesthetics” “The 2nd Wittgenstein philosophy is much inspired from a kantianism, than from a logical positivism”

“Within the pictorial theory of language, Wittgenstein demonstrated that we can derive complex sentences from atomic ones”

Pattern III : “problematic” problem-areas..

- Problem: we usually employ the notion of field-of-study to organize disciplines, but how is this defined?

- field-of-study vs problem-area

- Often scholars redefine their discipline: - how to maintain interoperability, even when two instances of “logic” mean totally different things?- how does a field-of-study relate to the view which defines it?


“Physics deals with problems linked to the definition of the properties of matter, and many others”“The problems of newtonian physics have just become a particular case of those in einstein physics”

“Across time, the problems and methods of physics have been changing considerably”


“Physics deals with problems linked to the definition of the properties of matter, and many others”“The problems of newtonian physics have just become a particular case of those in einsteinian physics”

“Across time, the problems and methods of physics have been changing considerably”

Conclusions / Future work:

- PhiloSURFical- among the first attempts to connect SW and humanities (esp. philosophy)- at least another two big initiatives have started in the last year (InPhilo Project, Discovery Project) - ongoing work: more browsing features, personalization, annotation support, effective sparql integration..- likely to be interfaced with other H&C initiatives or SW data sources (Dbpedia, Project Gutemberg, Eurostat)

- Ontology - available on http://philosurfical.open.ac.uk/onto.html - arguably the most comprehensive of its kind - modelling patterns are not just for building purposes!- likely to be extended and improved in future work (collaborators?)- going to be used also in the InPhilo project, for indexing the SEP

http://philosurfical.open.ac.uk/onto.html

http://philosurfical.open.ac.uk/onto.html

. . . t h a n k y o u . . .

http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/mikele/

Using Semantic Technologies to support Philosophers : Ontological Issues Michele Pasin, Enrico Motta...

Documents

Transcript of Using Semantic Technologies to support Philosophers : Ontological Issues Michele Pasin, Enrico Motta...