| 词条 | Conceptualization (information science) |
| 释义 |
In information science a conceptualization is an abstract simplified view of some selected part of the world, containing the objects, concepts, and other entities that are presumed of interest for some particular purpose and the relationships between them.[2][3] An explicit specification of a conceptualization is an ontology, and it may occur that a conceptualization can be realized by several distinct ontologies.[2] An ontological commitment in describing ontological comparisons is taken to refer to that subset of elements of an ontology shared with all the others.[5][6] "An ontology is language-dependent", its objects and interrelations described within the language it uses, while a conceptualization is always the same, more general, its concepts existing "independently of the language used to describe it".[7] The relation between these terms is shown in the figure to the right. Not all workers in knowledge engineering use the term ‘conceptualization’, but instead refer to the conceptualization itself, or to the ontological commitment of all its realizations, as an overarching ontology.[8] Purpose and implementationAs a higher level abstraction, a conceptualization facilitates the discussion and comparison of its various ontologies, facilitating knowledge sharing and reuse.[8][10] Each ontology based upon the same overarching conceptualization maps the conceptualization into specific elements and their relationships. The question then arises as to how to describe the 'conceptualization' in terms that can encompass multiple ontologies. This issue has been called the 'Tower of Babel' problem, that is, how can persons used to one ontology talk with others using a different ontology?[3][10] This problem is easily grasped, but a general resolution is not at hand. It can be a 'bottom-up' or a 'top-down' approach, or something in between. However, in more artificial situations, such as information systems, the idea of a 'conceptualization' and the 'ontological commitment' of various ontologies that realize the 'conceptualization' is possible.[7][15] The formation of a conceptualization and its ontologies involves these steps:[16]
An example of moving conception into a language leading to a variety of ontologies is the expression of a process in pseudocode (a strictly structured form of ordinary language) leading to implementation in several different formal computer languages like Lisp or Fortran. The pseudocode makes it easier to understand the instructions and compare implementations, but the formal languages make possible the compilation of the ideas as computer instructions. {{citation needed|date=August 2013}} Another example is mathematics, where a very general formulation (the analog of a conceptualization) is illustrated with 'applications' that are more specialized examples. For instance, aspects of a function space can be illustrated using a vector space or a topological space that introduce interpretations of the 'elements' of the conceptualization and additional relationships between them but preserve the connections required in the function space. {{citation needed|date=August 2013}} See also
References1. ^This figure has similarities with Figure 1 in [https://books.google.com/books?id=Wf5p3_fUxacC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false Guarino] and to slide 7 in the talk by van Harmelen. These sources are among the references to this article. The figure is imported from Citizendium. [2][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]2. ^1 {{cite book |title=The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy |edition=Paperback 2nd |page= 631 |chapter=Ontological commitment |isbn=978-0521637220 |author= Roger F. Gibson |editor=Robert Audi |year=1999 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kQQNBTW_hoAC&pg=PT1537}} A shortened version of that definition is as follows::The ontological commitments of a theory are those things which occur in all the ontologies of that theory. To explain further, the ontology of a theory consists of the objects the theory makes use of. A dependence of a theory upon an object is indicated if the theory fails when the object is omitted. However, the ontology of a theory is not necessarily unique. A theory is ontologically committed to an object only if that object occurs in all the ontologies of that theory. A theory also can be ontologically committed to a class of objects if that class is populated (not necessarily by the same objects) in all its ontologies. [italics added] 3. ^{{cite web |title=The language of thought hypothesis |first=Murat|last=Aydede |work= The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition) |editor=Edward N. Zalta |url= http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/language-thought/ |date=September 17, 2010}} 4. ^1 2 For example, see {{cite journal |title= Modeling utility ontologies in agentcities with a collaborative approach |author1=Luigi Ceccaroni |author2=Myriam Ribiere |url=http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-66/oas02-13.pdf |journal=Proceedings of the Workshop AAMAS |year=2002}} 5. ^1 {{cite journal |title= Modeling utility ontologies in agentcities with a collaborative approach |author1=Luigi Ceccaroni |author2=Myriam Ribiere |url=http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-66/oas02-13.pdf |journal=Proceedings of the Workshop AAMAS |year=2002}} A quotation follows::“Researchers...come from different areas of study and have different perspectives on modeling, but significantly they pledged to adopt the same ontological commitment. That is, they agree to adopt common, predefined ontologies...to express general categories, even if they do not completely agree on the modeling behind the ontological representations. Where ontological commitment is lacking, it is difficult to converse clearly about a domain and to benefit from knowledge representations developed by others... Ontological commitment is thus an integral aspect of ontological engineering.” [italics added] 6. ^1 2 {{cite book |title=Formal Ontology in Information Systems (Proceedings of FOIS '98, Trento, Italy) |first=Nicola|last=Guarino |pages=3 ff |chapter=Formal Ontology in Information Systems |editor=Nicola Guarino |isbn=978-90-5199-399-8 |year=1998 |publisher=IOS Press |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Wf5p3_fUxacC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7}} 7. ^1 2 {{cite journal |first=Thomas R. |last=Gruber |authorlink=Tom Gruber |date=June 1993 |url=http://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993.pdf |title=A translation approach to portable ontology specifications |journal=Knowledge Acquisition |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=199–220 |doi=10.1006/knac.1993.1008|citeseerx=10.1.1.101.7493 }} 8. ^1 {{cite journal |title=Formalizing ontological commitments |author1=Nicola Guarino |author2=Massimiliano Carrara |author3=Pierdaniele Giaretta |journal=AAAI |volume=94 |pages=560–567 |year=1994 |url=http://www.mit.bme.hu/system/files/oktatas/targyak/7412/Formalizing_Ontological_Commitments.pdf}} 9. ^1 {{cite book |title=Ontology-Based Multi-Agent Systems |chapter=Chapter 7: Design methodology for integrated systems - Part I (Ontology design) |pages=111 ff |author1=Maja Hadzic |author2=Pornpit Wongthongtham |author3=Elizabeth Chang |author4=Tharam Dillon |isbn=978-3642019036 |year=2009 |publisher=Springer |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kRoA_vxUwvQC&pg=PA111}} 10. ^1 2 {{cite web |title=Ontology mapping: a way out of the medical tower of babel |author=Frank van Harmelen |url=http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/aime05/presentations/Ontology%20Mapping%20A%20Way%20out%20of%20the%20Medical%20Tower%20of%20Babel.pdf}} 11. ^1 2 {{cite book |chapter= Chapter 11: Ontology |first=Barry|last=Smith |chapter-url=http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/ontology_PIC.pdf |title=Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information |publisher=Blackwell |year=2003 |pages=155–166 |editor=Luciano Floridi |isbn=978-0631229186 }} }} Further reading
External links
7 : Information science|Ontology|Knowledge engineering|Knowledge representation|Ontology (information science)|Semantic Web|Technical communication |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。