The Information Artifact Ontology (IAO) was created to serve as a domain‐neutral resource for the representation of types of information content entities (ICEs) such as documents, data‐bases, and digital images. We identify a series of problems with the current version of the IAO and suggest solutions designed to advance our understanding of the relations between ICEs and associated cognitive representations in the minds of human subjects. This requires embedding IAO in a larger framework of ontologies, including most importantly the Mental Functioning Ontology (MFO). It also requires a careful treatment of the aboutness relations between ICEs and associated cognitive representations and their targets in reality.
At the heart of the IAO is the term ‘Information Content Entity’ (ICE), which is currently defined as follows: INFORMATION CONTENT ENTITY =def. an ENTITY which is (1) GENERICALLY DEPENDENT on (2) some MATERIAL ENTITY and which (3) stands in a relation of ABOUTNESS to some ENTITY.
An ICE is thus conceived as an entity which is about something in reality and which can migrate or be transmitted (for example through copying) from one entity to another. In what follows we introduce and defend proposals to improve this definition and the IAO as a whole.
The relation of generic dependence was introduced into BFO 1.1 in order to capture the fact that some dependent entities – for example the dependent entity which is the pattern of ink marks in your copy of the novel War and Peace (a complex quality in BFO terms) – are able to migrate from one bearer to another (e.g. through use of a photocopier). Generic dependence can thus be defined as follows: a generically depends on b = def. a exists and b exists and: for some universal B, b instance_of B and necessarily (if a exists then some B exists)
In BFO 1.0 the migration of dependent entities from one
bearer to another was excluded. Dependence was seen as
amounting in every case to specific dependence, or in other
words as a relation which obtains between one entity and
another specific entity when the first is of its nature such
that it cannot exist unless the second also exists. A smile is
dependent in this sense on a certain specific face, a
headache on a certain specific head, a charge on a certain
specific conductor. Generic dependence, in contrast, obtains
where the first entity is dependent, not on some specific
second entity, but rather merely on there being some second
entity of the appropriate type
A generically dependent entity is in each case concretized (see definition in section 5) in some specifically dependent entity (more specifically in some BFO:quality). For example, this DNA sequence is concretized in this specific ordering (pattern) of nucleotides in this particular molecule; this sentence is concretized in this pattern of ink marks on this piece of paper (or also in this pattern of neuronal connections in the brain of the subject who reads it). The term ‘pattern’ can thus be understood in two senses – as referring either (i) to what is shared or communicated (between original and copy, between sender and receiver), or (ii) to the specific pattern before you when you are reading from your copy of Tolstoy’s novel.
We can now define:
INFORMATION QUALITY ENTITY (IQE) =def. a QUALITY
that is the concretization of some INFORMATION
CONTENT ENTITY (ICE)
All concretizations are qualities in the BFO framework. Such qualities can serve as the basis for dispositions. When we concretize a lab test order by reading the text of the order on our screen, then in addition to the mental quality that is formed in our mind as we read the text, there is also a disposition to be realized in our actions of carrying out the relevant test. This disposition may come into being simultaneously with the mental quality created through our understanding of the text, but it is still dependent on this quality, as is shown by the fact that the latter may exist even in the absence of any accompanying disposition.
We define ‘artifact’ and ‘information artifact’ as follows: ARTIFACT =def. a MATERIAL ENTITY created or modified or selected by some agent to realize a certain FUNCTION or ROLE (Examples: a key, a lock, a screwdriver) INFORMATION ARTIFACT =def. an ARTIFACT whose function is to bear an INFORMATION QUALITY ENTITY. (Examples: a hard drive, a traffic sign, a printed form, a passport, a currency note, an RFID chip, a SIM card) As a matter of definition, therefore, all information artifacts are material entities. While every ICE is dependent upon some material entity that is its bearer ICEs themselves are not material entities.
In reflection of the needs it was originally designed to address, the IAO is focused deliberately on ICEs associated with information artifacts – above all scientific publications and databases – thus with information entities which are continuants in BFO terms. No less important, however, is the occurrent side of the informational coin, which is made up of those processes – above all acts of thinking, speaking, hearing, writing and reading – through which ICEs are created, understood, and communicated. Given that thinking and speaking pre-dated writing, we know that acts of these sorts existed long before there were any information artifacts. They are of crucial importance to the ontological treatment of the phenomenon of aboutness because it is they which provide the relational tie between representations and their targets in reality.
If, therefore, we are to deal with these more fundamental
aspects of the information pipeline, then we will need to
embed the IAO into a wider framework of ontologies. This
would include, on the one hand, all existing domain
ontologies, which can be seen as representing the portions of
reality about which we have information – they are ontologies of
the various families of targets of aboutness. More
importantly here, however, it would include on the other hand
the Mental Functioning Ontology (MFO), which is designed
to provide the resources to describe different types of
cognitive acts, including those cognitive acts as a result of which
ICEs are created
Aboutness corresponds to what is otherwise referred to by
means of the expressions ‘reference’ or ‘denotation,’
The current IAO definition of ICE can account for the
aboutness involved in many examples of these sorts.
However, we believe that it falls short when it comes to more
complex cases. In
The last example on this list is not only about Barack Obama but also about his role of being President of the USA and about the USA itself. But it is not only about these entities taken singly; in addition, it is about how the three entities are related to each other in a certain interval of time, and about the entire portion of reality – the configuration – made up by all of these together. This configuration is asserted to exist by a human subject using the corresponding sentence in a specific sort of context and with a specific sort of associated cognitive quality. But it can also be referred to, for instance when someone makes a second-order assertion using a nominalized expression, as in: That Barack Obama is President of the USA is of epoch-making significance. 3
We can on this basis address another issue with IAO’s current definition of ICE, which is that it does not give us a clear way of doing justice to the distinction between information on the one hand and what we might call misinformation on the other. Consider the ICE concretized in the sentence Barack Obama was never President of the USA, written on some piece of paper in 2015. This ICE is indeed about Barack Obama, the USA, and so forth. But what it communicates about these entities is something that is false. Our amended definition of ICE can allow us to accept that both information and mis-information exist, but also to recognize that the latter is not a special type of the former (that what some people might call ‘false information’ is not a special type of information, any more than a cancelled oophorectomy is a special type of oophorectomy). We achieve this by using our generalized definition of ICE to formulate a view according to which the relation of aboutness between a composite (for example sentential) ICE and the associated portions of reality can obtain (or fail to obtain) simultaneously on two (or in principle more than two) levels: first, on the level of simple referring expressions such as ‘Barack Obama’ and ‘USA’; and second, on the level of more complex expressions such as sentences and their nominalizations.
A true sentence on the upper level is about a
corresponding configuration (where the term ‘configuration’ is to be
understood in a way similar to the way ‘fact’ or ‘obtaining
state of affairs’ are understood by some philosophers
If someone writes on a piece of paper the sentence Barack Obama is President of Russia, then there is an ICE – concretized by this written string and by any copies made thereof – which is generically dependent on the piece of paper and which is about (on the aforementioned lower level) Barack Obama, his being president, and Russia. But this ICE is not about any corresponding configuration, simply because there is no corresponding configuration. It is for this reason that the given sentence, while it is about certain entities in reality, is nonetheless not true of those entities. This strategy can be used also to explain how a fictional sentence such as Sherlock Holmes was a user of cocaine, can concretize an ICE – by inheriting aboutness from one or more of its components (here for example the string cocaine, which is about a corresponding universal) – even though the sentence as a whole is not about anything in reality.
A related problem with the current IAO is that it does not provide us with the resources to do justice to what happens with certain types of ICE when what they are about changes over time. The problem here is that the ICE concretized by the sentence Barack Obama was never President of the USA written on a piece of paper in 2007 was true when it was written; yet it appears that this very same sentence, when read by some observer in 2009, would be false.
This appearance is misleading, however, for it is not the case that the ICE in question changes in the intervening period. Rather, what has changed is the first-order reality that this ICE claims to be about. Certainly as a result of these changes in first-order reality there came into existence many new ICEs relevant to Obama, the presidency and the USA, with many new concretizations. But the original ICE, with its original concretization born with its original act of creation, must nonetheless still be evaluated as true. This is because, as in the case of the nurse’s data entry above, the ICE in question has its time of origin baked into it through the indexicality of the was in was never President.
We shall presuppose in what follows that information
artifacts do not bear information in and of themselves, but
only because cognitive subjects associate representations of
certain sorts with the patterns which they manifest. We thus
view the aboutness that is manifested by information
content entities in accordance with the doctrine of the ‘primacy
of the intentional’
At higher levels we may have ungrounded
representations, as illustrated for example in the letter published by
Urbain Le Verrier in 1859
Such changes in our understanding of the reference of
terms are of course a common phenomenon in the world of
ontology, and specifically in the world of ontology
versioning. Paying careful attention to these changes forms the
basis for the strategy for ontology evaluation we have outlined
in
We build on the notions of representation and
representational unit informally introduced in
We provided a formal definition of ‘representation’ along
these lines in
REPRESENTATION =def. a QUALITY which is_about or is intended to be about a PORTION OF REALITY (POR). We can now single out cognitive representations (representations of the sorts instantiated in the brains of beings like ourselves) by means of the terms:
MENTAL QUALITY =def. a QUALITY which specifically depends on an ANATOMICAL STRUCTURE in the cognitive system of an ORGANISM.
COGNITIVE REPRESENTATION =def. a REPRESENTATION which is a MENTAL QUALITY. defined in the Mental Functioning Ontology. We are here attempting to remain neutral as concerns the precise nature of cognitive representations; thus it does not follow from the definitions that such representations involve something like images; nor does it follow that they must all be conscious representations.
As concerns occurrents in the realm of cognition, it is
clear that mental processes, too, for example processes of
thinking or imagining or remembering, may be about or be
intended to be about some portion of reality. We
hypothesize, however, that such occurrent representations are
always such as to inherit their intended aboutness from some
underlying continuant representation. When the doctor sees,
and recognizes, for example, that there is a rash on her
patient’s leg, then her act of recognition coincides temporally
with the beginning to exist of a correspondingly targeted
(relational) mental quality on her part
As we saw above, cognitive representations may be more or less complex. When analyzed into their constituent parts, however, then we arrive at what we called ‘representational units’ (RUs), defined as the smallest constituent sub-representations, including icons, names, simple word forms, or the sorts of alphanumeric identifiers we might find in patient records. (Smith et al., 2006)
Subtypes of representational unit can then be defined as
follows
RU
NRU UNRU RNRU
RUC ‘Paris’ ‘Atlantis’ ‘Vulcan’ (as used by Le Verrier in 1860) ‘Vulcan’ (as used now when referreing to Le Verrier’s error) ‘Le’ (as it appears in the third row of this table) Note that, as the ‘Vulcan’ case makes clear, classifications of representations under headings 1. to 5. may change with time. Note, too that, while items 2. to 5. on this list signify one or other kind of shortfall from aboutness, representations under item 1. include the fundamental (grounding, target-securing) cases of direct cognitive representation referred to in the case of the nurse taking someone’s pulse as in our example above. 5
To do justice formally to the foregoing we propose the following primitive relational expressions. These cannot be defined, but only elucidated by means of examples and informal specifications of their meanings.
x is_about y means: x refers to or is cognitively directed towards y. Domain: representations; Range: portions of reality. Axiom: if x is_about y then y exists (veridicality). x concretizes y at t means: x is a QUALITY & y is a GENERICALLY DEPENDENT CONTINUANT & for some material entity z, x specifically_depends_on z at t & y generically_depends_on z at t & if y migrates from bearer z to another bearer w then a copy of x will be created in w. x is_a_direct_cognitive_representation_of y means: x is a COGNITIVE REPRESENTATION in some subject s & x is_about y & x comes into existence, as a result of a causal process initiated by y and in a way appropriate to y, in the cognitive system of s. Example: a causal process of visual perception initiated by an object presented visually to s. 5.2
x is_a_representation_of y =def. x is a REPRESENTATION & x is_about y (where y is a portion of reality). Note that not all representations are about something. x is_conformant_to y =def. x is an INFORMATION QUALITY ENTITY & y is a COGNITIVE REPRESENTATION & there is some GDC g such that x concretizes g and y concretizes g. Example: x is a sentence on a piece of paper, y is the belief of the author of the sentence who wrote the sentence as an expression of her belief, and g is the ICE (the content) that belief and sentence share.
Although it is a requirement that the target of aboutness be a portion of reality (POR), there is no requirement that the relevant POR exists at the time when the associated cognitive representation exists. Thus a patient can contemplate a past disorder, for instance by regretting his not having accepted the advice of some clinician. His thoughts are then about that very disorder, and not for example about his memories thereof. This is so independently of whether the nature of the disorder is known to him or not.
There is also no requirement that the agent of a veridical representation knows what the portion of reality is that his representation is about: even a baby, or a cat, may see a flow cytometer. We can directly represent an object even though we are ignorant of or mistaken about what universal it instantiates.
There is also – as is illustrated by the case of believers in the Higgs boson before there was evidence for its existence – no requirement that aboutness must imply that the subject knows that what he is representing exists – he must merely believe that it exists.
Although neuroscience, to our best understanding, is not yet sufficiently advanced to provide answers to the question what the precise physical basis of a mental quality exactly is – for example whether it is certain spatial configurations of one or more molecules in one or more brain cells – we believe that the following hypothesis is correct: that an anatomical structure in which there can inhere a mental quality need not always have a mental quality inhering in it (in this respect having a mental quality is comparable to having the quality of being pregnant and is to be contrasted with qualities such as height and mass, given that something in which there can inhere a height or a mass must always have a height or mass of some determinate sort). From this, it is then just a short step to the question of whether there can be unconscious representations, a question which, however, we must here leave aside for reasons of space. 7
IAO was designed to deal with information artifacts, which
is to say with continuants such as the information stored in
hard drives or formulated in written sentences or in printed
texts – thus with information that is shareable between
multiple bearers, including bearers existing at different times.
As will by now be clear, the IAO must be embedded in a
broader framework of ontologies, including the Mental
Functioning Ontology
We are grateful to Bill Duncan, Mark Jensen, Tatiana Malyuta, Ron Rud-nicki, Alan Ruttenberg and Selja Seppälä for many valuable discussions.