Ontology-Schmology!

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
gt
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 gt
• 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!!!