Synthese

, Volume 182, Issue 2, pp 205–233 | Cite as

From encyclopedia to ontology: toward dynamic representation of the discipline of philosophy

Article

Abstract

The application of digital humanities techniques to philosophy is changing the way scholars approach the discipline. This paper seeks to open a discussion about the difficulties, methods, opportunities, and dangers of creating and utilizing a formal representation of the discipline of philosophy. We review our current project, the Indiana Philosophy Ontology (InPhO) project, which uses a combination of automated methods and expert feedback to create a dynamic computational ontology for the discipline of philosophy. We argue that our distributed, expert-based approach to modeling the discipline carries substantial practical and philosophical benefits over alternatives. We also discuss challenges facing our project (and any other similar project) as well as the future directions for digital philosophy afforded by formal modeling.

Keywords

Ontology Taxonomy Encyclopedias Metaphilosophy Digital philosophy Semantic web 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ceusters, W., & Smith, B. (2006). A realism-based approach to the evolution of biomedical ontologies. Proceedings of the Annual AMIA Symposium, pp. 121–125.Google Scholar
  2. Crampes, M., & Ranwez, S. (2000). Ontology-supported and ontology-driven conceptual navigation on the world wide web. Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, pp. 191–199.Google Scholar
  3. Flouris, G., Plexousakis, D., & Antoniou, G. (2006). Evolving ontology evolution. Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practice of Computer Science, pp. 14–29.Google Scholar
  4. Giles J. (2005) Internet encyclopedias go head to head. Nature 438: 900–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gruber T. (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2): 199–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gruber T. (2008) Ontology. In: Liu L., Özsu M.T. (eds) Encyclopedia of database systems. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. Guarino N. (1995) Formal ontology, conceptual analysis, and knowledge representation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43: 625–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hinman L. (2005) Esse est indicato in Google: Ethical and political issues in search engines. International Review of Information Ethics 3(6): 19–25Google Scholar
  9. Holscher C., Strube G. (2000) Web search behavior of internet experts and newbies. Computer Networks 33: 337–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jaschik, S. (2007). A stand against Wikipedia. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved July 7, 2008 from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki
  11. Kim J., Choi B., Shin H., Kim H. (2007) A methodology for constructing of philosophy ontology based on philosophical texts. Computer Standards and Interfaces 29: 302–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Niepert, M., Buckner, C., & Allen, C. (2007). A dynamic ontology for a dynamic reference work. Proceedings of JCDL 2007, pp. 288–297.Google Scholar
  13. Niepert, M., Buckner, C., & Allen, C. (2008). Answer set programming on expert feedback to populate and extend dynamic ontologies. Proceedings of 21st FLAIRS.Google Scholar
  14. Noy, N., & McGuinness, D. (2001). Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology. Stanford Medical Informatics Technical Report 880. Retrieved January 8, 2009 from http://smi.stanford.edu/smi-web/reports/SMI-2001-0880.pdf
  15. Oltramari, A., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., & Masolo, C. (2002). Restructuring Wordnet’s top-level: The ontoclean approach. Paper presented at LREC2002, Las Palmas.Google Scholar
  16. O’Madadhain, J., Fisher, D., Smyth, P. White, S., & Boey, Y. (2005). Analysis and visualization of network data using JUNG. Journal of Statistical Software. Retrieved July 7, 2008 from http://jung.sourceforge.net/doc/JUNG_journal.pdf
  17. Pasin, M., Motta, E., & Zdrahal, Z. (2007). Capturing knowledge about philosophy. Proceedings of K-CAP 2007—The Fourth International Conference on Knowledge Capture.Google Scholar
  18. Pease, A., Niles, I., & Li, J., (2002). The Suggested Upper Merged Ontology: A large ontology for the semantic web and its applications. Working Notes of the AAAI-2002 Workshop on Ontologies and the Semantic Web.Google Scholar
  19. Poli R. (1995) Bimodality of formal ontology and mereology. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43: 687–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rescher, N. (2007). The transformation of American philosophy. In Is philosophy dispensable? and other philosophical essays (pp. 99–114). Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Richardson M., Domingos P. (2006) Markov logic networks. Machine Learning 62(1–2): 107–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sanger, L. (2008). Who says we know? On the new politics of knowledge. The Edge, 208. Retrieved March 22, 2008 from http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/sanger07/sanger07_index.html
  23. Smith B. (2003) Ontology. In: Luciano F. (eds) Blackwell guide to the philosophy of computing and information. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 155–166Google Scholar
  24. Smith, B. (2006). Against idiosyncrasy in ontology development. Proceedings of Formal Ontology and Information Systems 2006.Google Scholar
  25. Stuckenschmidt, H. (2006). Toward multi-viewpoint reasoning with OWL ontologies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4011.Google Scholar
  26. Trautwein, M., & Grenon, P. (2004). Roles: One dead armadillo on Wordnet’s speedway to ontology. Proceedings of the Second International WordNet Conference, pp. 341–346.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.KR & KM Research Group, Department of Computer ScienceUniversitaet MannheimMannheimGermany
  3. 3.Department of History and Philosophy of Science/Cognitive ScienceIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations