=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-332/paper-6
|storemode=property
|title=Cultural Specification and Culturalization - An exposition of two basic problems regarding the development of ontologies in computer science
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-332/paper5.pdf
|volume=Vol-332
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/wspi/Wiegerling08
}}
==Cultural Specification and Culturalization - An exposition of two basic problems regarding the development of ontologies in computer science==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-332/paper5.pdf
Cultural Specification and Temporalization – An exposition of two basic
problems regarding the development of ontologies in computer science
Klaus Wiegerling
TU Kaiserslautern, Fachgebiet Philosophie and Universität Stuttgart, Institut für Philosophie, Center of
Excellence 627: Nexus – Spacial World Models for Mobile Context-Aware Applications
Abstract: This paper discusses current conceptions of ontology in computer science focussing on cultural
specification and temporalization. It is pointed out, first, that ontologies arrange the world, they do not represent
it; second, that ontologies, except logical Formal Ontologies, can be developed within a cultural framework;
third, Top Level and Domain Ontologies have to be complemented by Pragmatic Ontologies, if they are to be
used in every-day life; fourth, Pragmatic Ontologies magnify the problem of temporalizing ontologies.
Keywords: Pragmatic Ontology, temporalization, cultural specification, sense of historicity
According to Janich the use of the philosophical term „ontology“ in the information sciences
is not problem-free, as this term does not necessarily provide guidance and help respectively
to finding solutions to informatory and especially semantic problems. [1] Despite this, the
term “ontology” – far removed from the philosophical discourse - has taken root in the
computer sciences and by serving as a pragmatic category can contribute somewhat to
describing and solving problems. This, however, poses the problem that ontologies have time
and again been viewed in a representational context. But ontologies do not represent the
world, they arrange the world. That is, the world is not reproduced or mirrored by the use of
ontologies in information sciences but is arranged within a specific, actually culturally
specific framework.
Even the widespread concept, that philosophical ontologies are descriptive and ontologies in
computer science are prescriptive is not substantive, insofar as ontologies do not describe
actually anything. Ontologies are dealing with universalia, transcendentalia and most abstract
categories respectively and thus help in arranging things and facts. However, they do not
reflect a concrete subject and therefore it does not make any sense to call them
representations. Ontologies classify the world in patterns, which are generally based on the
language and the specific cultural disposition. For example, many Indian family sociologists
have changed databases from English to Indian languages, because the English classification
of relationships does not capture the specific relationships in an Indian family, especially the
important hierarchic structures between first-born and younger siblings.
Thus ontologies arrange supposed representations and this process of being arranged in a
certain way, referenced or put into a hierarchical order, gives these representations meaning.
Ontologies in computer sciences could serve quite a useful purpose by serving as structural
framework. The fact that ontologies do not represent the world but arrange it is evident in
Foucault’s famous foreword to „Les mots et les choses“[2], where he quotes Borges by
referring to his mentioning of a Chinese encyclopedia according to which animals are
arranged by a peculiar taxonomy. This taxonomy distinguishes between animals which are
owned by the Emperor, embalmed animals and animals which act as if they are mad. This
shows that arranging animals can be done according to very different cultural preferences or
classifications. Just think of the significance of cows in every-day life of Hindu India or the
value of dogs in our culture compared to China. The taxonomy we apply is only one of many
possible ones. Especially if an ontology is to be developed as a „Common Ontology“
(actually an absurd term, there is simply no ‚common ontology’, because the term is part of a
meta language) – cultural specifications or rather cultural bias cannot be avoided.
Any arrangement of things or - as in our case – the arrangement of representations is a
symbolic linking [3], which requires a common prior knowledge. The problem of this
common prior knowledge was discussed by Rafael Capurro as early as 1986 in his book
„Hermeneutik und Fachinformation“[4] for the field of data bank systems in view of classic
hermeneutical considerations. The level of common prior knowledge which makes
understanding and knowing possible had to be defined prior to creating an informatory
system. But ontologies claim to integrate this level of common prior knowledge into the
system itself. This applies especially to adaptive systems, which claim to have hermeneutic
capabilities. That means these systems claim to cover spheres, which were considered
belonging to the humanities and the human existence respectively.
At present we distinguish between two main types of ontologies: general ontologies, which
integrate various fields, so-called Top Level Ontologies, and ontologies, which define specific
ranges of application, called Domain Ontologies. This distinction generally corresponds with
the classic philosophical distinction between formal ontologies and content-defined or
regional ontologies [5]. The question remains, however, whether this suffices to cover all
types of ontologies. It seems that this distinction works in areas of classic, i.e. scientific or
specified data bank information systems (Fachinformationssysteme), even if an application-
oriented expansion is necessary as in the case of medical implementations.
Problems arise, however, when our every day work is to be supported by ubiquitous
computing. While Top Level Ontologies, designed in a rather logical and abstract way
respectively, are assessing the top level structures and the general laws governing reality, and
Domain Ontologies are busy arranging the world according to content into certain spheres, a
Pragmatic Ontology should be developed based on the permanently and fast changing ranges
of application. Aspects of temporalization especially are of significant importance in this
area.
Generally a Pragmatic Ontology merely intensifies problems inherent to a lesser degree in the
two basic types of ontologies. Domain Ontologies and Top Level Ontologies just prove to be
more stable and show a sort of greater logical consistency. But as soon as we leave the level
of formal logic there these systems are influenced by temporal and cultural factors. The
descriptive level already contains cultural implications. Even scientific ways of describing are
just an expression of a certain cultural perspective of European science as Husserl
demonstrated in his famous Krisis-book [6]. These two basic systems of informatory
ontologies are all in all relatively stable systems of structuring. „Top Level Ontologies“ and
„Domain Ontologies“ actually gain their stability by means of disarticulation
(„Desartikulation“ according to Rothacker [7]), for example aesthetic and emotional moments
are disarticulated, whereas Pragmatic Ontologies are faced with constant change and therefore
have to undergo permanent temporalization and historicization respectively.
Pragmatic Ontologies have to be sensitively tuned into cultural and historical factors and have
to be distinguished clearly from naive naturalistic Ontologies, regardless how variedly
differentiated they may be. Ideas in naturalistic Ontologies do not disclose their roots in
history or Lebenswelt and thus also do not disclose that they are subject to change. Pragmatic
Ontologies on the other hand exacerbate a problem which is inert in other types of ontologies.
This problem, which is not that obvious in the two other types, is the fact that any arranging
of so-called representations is done by culturally specific factors and is thus historic, i.e.
influenced by cultural and historical preferences. This means that each and every way of
arranging is subject to culturally specific articulations and disarticulations. Furthermore there
are linguistic and therefore cultural connotations that cannot simply be transferred to other
cultures or languages. The term “Euthanasie” in German has a different connotation than its
translation in Dutch or English. But less problematic examples clearly show that systems of
arranging cannot just be adapted to other languages or cultures. „Die Sonne“ (engl.: the sun)
has a different connotation than the masculine „le soleil“ in French. Cultural and historical
specifications respectively cannot be avoided in any ontology which is to be used for actual
spoken language.
The general problem is that not just stores of scientific knowledge but applications as well
become outdated. It would therefore make sense to equip data with time indicators and
expiration dates respectively. Moreover, within certain areas of application assessment
preferences should be created – a more difficult challenge- preferences which should reflect
the reason for use. Certain applications, for example, depend on whether the user is
handicapped or not, or what kind of situation the user finds himself in, i.e. whether he is in an
emergency or not.
Especially higher-level applications require the system to make temporal or historical
judgments. For example, it has to be understood that in certain contexts Austria has to be
defined as a major power. Briefly spoken, the system has to be equipped with some sense of
historicity, if it is to support the user successfully in certain applications. It is however
obvious that temporalization of ontologies is not merely concerned with temporal logic.
Especially historical aspects as such are not merely concerned with temporal logic but
primarily a thing of rating, of connotation and referencing respectively, a thing of
superposition and hierarchisation of data.
It is, however, doubtful, if it is possible to implement a sense of historicity at all, because
historicity can only be viewed in terms of quality. Whether a system could have a sensitivity
for and thus develop a sense of the significance of historical events (Ereignishaftigkeit )
depends on the possibility of actually living with us. This would also be a question to be
discussed in the Artificial Intelligence community. Despite this, it is necessary to at least
implement elements of a historical sense, which are quantitative; for example, historical
events, which can be dated exactly like the end of WWII or periods in which the meaning of a
term is changing or becomes ambivalent.
Generally we can distinguish between three aspects of temporalization. To integrate these
aspects into ontologies poses various levels of difficulty:
a) Temporalization by equipping data with a time index. This procedure is without doubt
easy to implement and already has been used in many areas.
b) Temporalization as a preference of assessment. According to certain situations of use
data is hierarchised differently and is therefore listed in different time sequences. This
aspect of temporalization can be more easily designed for scientific fields and
scientific information systems than every-day use, as this field is not made up of users
who share a clearly defined terminology.
c) Temporalization as historic interpretive level. This aspect of temporalization requires a
system which can adapt in a way as to change preferences according to change in
society. A mere statistical assessment of data would not be enough, rather statistical
assessments would have to be aligned permanently with possible application situations
and qualitative assessments. Only this act of aligning will make obvious when terms
have become outdated in certain areas and which terms in which field prove to be
largely immune to change and which ones do not. If a system could develop a sort of
historic sense then the fact that such a “sensor” has been developed would carry
tremendous meaning for higher-level applications, that is applications which transcend
processing topical information.
References
1) Janich, Peter: Wozu Ontologie für Informatiker? – Objektbezug durch Sprachkritik (http://www.tfh-
berlin.de/~giak/arbeitskreise/softwaretechnik/publikationen/Janich6.pdf.)
2) Foucault, Michel: Les mots et les choses. Paris 1966.
3) A case could be made for using Ernst Cassirer’s symbol-theoretical approach to problems connected with
ontologies, as his approach deals strictly with questions of arranging and the linking of representations
respectively.
4) Capurro, Rafael: Hermeneutik und Fachinformation. Freiburg i.Br. 1986.
5) Husserl, Edmund: Formale und transzendentale Logik – Versuch einer Kritik der logischen Vernunft. Den
Haag 1974. (Husserliana Bd. XVII).
6) Husserl, Edmund: Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaft und die transzendentale Phänomenologie. Den
Haag 1954 (Husserliana Bd. VI).
7) Rothacker, Erich: Probleme der Kulturanthropologie. Bonn 1988. P. 112 - 122.