Understanding Ontologies

It seems important to describe the consequence of 'ontology' not simply from a technical level, but also from a social level...

From a social perspective, an ontology is a shared understanding or interpretation of the world and the concepts that exist within it. It is shaped by the cultural and social context in which it is developed, and it reflects the values, beliefs, and assumptions of the people who create it.

In sociology, the concept of ontology is often used to refer to the way that individuals and groups make sense of the world and their place within it. This includes their understanding of the nature of reality, the categories and concepts that they use to make sense of the world, and the relationships between these concepts.

In social interactions, individuals and groups often have different ontologies, reflecting their different experiences and perspectives. These differences can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts, as people may use different terms and categories to describe the same thing, or may have different assumptions about the nature of reality.

However, ontologies can also be shared and negotiated through social interactions, as individuals and groups engage in dialogue and communication. Through these interactions, people can come to a shared understanding of the world and the concepts that exist within it, allowing them to communicate more effectively and collaborate more effectively.

One of the best examples i know of was done by Jason Silva: Shots of Awe

A discussion about the concept

What is Ontology Modelling?

Ontology modeling is the process of creating a structured representation of a domain of knowledge. An ontology is a formal representation of a set of concepts within a domain, and the relationships between those concepts. It is used to define the vocabulary of a domain, as well as the types of relationships that can exist between concepts.

Ontologies are typically created using a formal language, such as the Web Ontology Language (OWL). They can be used to represent a wide range of knowledge, including scientific, medical, and even business knowledge.

There are several benefits to using ontologies in modeling a domain of knowledge. They allow for the creation of a common vocabulary that can be shared by multiple users or systems. They also enable the creation of more precise and unambiguous definitions of concepts, which can improve communication and understanding within a domain. Finally, ontologies can be used to enable automated reasoning, allowing computers to make inferences and draw conclusions based on the knowledge represented in the ontology.

Ontology employs vocabulary and is innately and somewhat inextricably linked with the mechanisms considered instrumental to consciousness; through which we organise communications of thought and embedded concepts. These systems lead to an implicit design of embedded ideology, values and belief systems; whether or not it is intended.

Semantic Web Historical Notes

Semantic Web, extension of the World Wide Web (WWW) in which data are given meaning (semantics) to enable computers to look up and “reason” in response to user searches. One of the strongest proponents of the Semantic Web is Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the British inventor of the WWW and the director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which oversees standards for the project.

Berners-Lee had envisioned the Semantic Web by at least 1994, only a few years after he began developing the WWW in 1989. He unveiled his idea for the Semantic Web at the First International WWW Conference, held in 1994, which resulted in the formation of the W3C.

Source: britannica

Part of the history of this project is that it appears to have been initially supported via the DARPA related project that created DAML +OIL. which then led to OWL that provides a top-level concept of owl:thing, although FOAF (which was originally created prior to OWL) does not define a person as a a subclass of owl:thing although other examples of FOAF appear to have changed the semantics to include it. This may be due to 'tool lock-ins', where some tools are designed to be specifically designed to use / work with OWL.

Some of these sorts of issues are difficult and confusing to both figure out and thereby form a comprehension about the intended designs / purpose; as the semantics matter, yet the ability to ensure comprehensible meanings - is seemingly challenged in some way; perhaps its just me, or perhaps its a broader problem, idk.

NOTE: A great deal of these works are very much centred upon forming an information fabric that renders an environment through which Human Beings employ Tools (ie: ICT) in a manner that defines Human Beings as the primary (yet indirect) agents; not as a 'thing' but rather as 'beings'. Whilst it appears as though these sorts of sentiments were seemingly expressed in the original FOAF works, the confusion (whether its due to my own confusion or other exteral issues or perhaps both) as to whether the predicate is owl:thing (whereby a person is a sub-class of thing) or whether human beings are independently represented, is not as clearly defined as is otherwise sought to be addressed.

Therein - the FOAF project was created sometime between the late 1990's and before 2001 (the history is sometimes hard to find).

The sitaution / growth of the internet at that stage; was at a very different level, as were the circumstances related to what usecases might be reasonably defined for systems of that time.

So, whilst the work done back then was indeed remarkable - and seemingly done in a manner that was mindful of - at least - the basic needs of human beings; perhaps there's validity in seeking to reinvent the modelling to uplift how future systems are made to work.

Considerations

The High level concepts that are being considered;

Presently, the primary ontological predicate is mostly owl:thing which thereby defines everything described by it a subclass of thing. Whilst this makes sense for things, i do not like the concept of human beings defined as a subclass of thing nor is it necessarily appropriate to define other parts of life as things; so perhaps this can be seperated as to form the logical foundations for seperating the human kind, the thing created by humankind and things (see - not sure what other term?) of our world, particularly therein - life.

Thereafter; one consitituency of the considerations is how to seperate the Conceptual 'spheres'

The ontological considerations relating to humans should also support considerations about qualia and 'philosophy of mind' related considerations; whereas the Biosphere related factors may be subject to some sort of property rights / law related assertions; but they do not exist because of mankind; rather, they are constituencies of what may be referred to as our natural world or what many would consider to be things or parts of 'god', including but not limited to - life. This in-turn has an array of implications relating to the differences between inventions (of man) and discoveries (of / for mankind). As an extension of these considerations the term Infosphere is thereby linked to the term inforg which i've previously used extensively when seeking to forge appropriate namonclature to describe the informational representation of a human being, and implicitly therein - consciousness; in a manner that is not improperly disruptive to FreedomofThought. As a consequence of previous works, i am convinced that there is a meaningful relationship between the field of study and communications of concepts broadly defined as quantum physics. Herein, as the ramifications are difficult to easily provide a mechanism for people to generally test and observe themselves; the implication of how to form meaningful insights or considerations; in so far as i have found, moreover relates to the way in which these concepts relating to physics and natural systems, are described.

One such example that is short, and therefore more useful than the longer presentations and/or lectures on the topic; is the short description provided by Henry Strapp on Quantum Mechanics and Human Consciousness; in it, strapp describes the importance of the role of the observer (the conscious agent).

HTTP(s) based ontologies are fundamental to the Semantic Web; which has later been termed 'linked data'.

In a w3c post; it describes linked data in the following way,

Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the Web and initiator of the Linked Data project, suggested a 5 star deployment scheme for Linked Data. The 5 Star Linked Data system is cumulative. Each additional star presumes the data meets the criteria of the previous step(s).

☆ Data is available on the Web, in whatever format.

☆☆ Available as machine-readable structured data, (i.e., not a scanned image).

☆☆☆ Available in a non-proprietary format, (i.e, CSV, not Microsoft Excel).

☆☆☆☆ Published using open standards from the W3C (RDF and SPARQL).

☆☆☆☆☆ All of the above and links to other Linked Open Data.

The Linked Data mug can be read with both green labels for Linked Open Data, or neither label for Linked Data. Proceeds of the Linked Open Data mug benefit the W3C.

source: W3C 5_Star_Linked_Data

More information about the background can be found on Tim Berners-lee's DesignIssues note on Linked Data and i made a note of it also in Jan 2014 re: Webizing apps.