Synthese

, Volume 182, Issue 2, pp 235–267 | Cite as

Ontological requirements for annotation and navigation of philosophical resources

Article

Abstract

In this article, we describe an ontology aimed at the representation of the relevant entities and relations in the philosophical world. We will guide the reader through our modeling choices, so to highlight the ontology’s practical purpose: to enable an annotation of philosophical resources which is capable of supporting pedagogical navigation mechanisms. The ontology covers all the aspects of philosophy, thus including characterizations of entities such as people, events, documents, and ideas. In particular, here we will present a detailed exposition of the entities belonging to the idea branch of the ontology, for they have a crucial role in the world of philosophy. Moreover, as an example of the type of applications made possible by the ontology we will introduce PhiloSurfical, a prototype tool we created to navigate contextually a classic work in twentieth century philosophy, Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. We discuss the potential usage of such navigation mechanisms in educational and scholarly contexts, which aim to enhance the learning process through the serendipitous discovery of relevant resources.

Keywords

Ontology Philosophy Digital narratives Knowledge representation Semantic web CIDOC Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AKT. Reference ontology v.2—AKTive portal ontology v.2. (2002). http://d3e.open.ac.uk/akt/2002/portal-ocml-v2.0/portal-ocml-v2.0-t.html.
  2. Allen J. F. (1984) Towards a general theory of action and time. Artificial Intelligence 23: 123–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bachelard, G. (1938). La formation de l’esprit scientifique.Google Scholar
  4. Bazzocchi, L. (2007). On butterfly’s feelers: Some examples of surfing on Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. Proceedings of the 30th International Ludwig Wittgenstein-Symposium.Google Scholar
  5. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic web. Scientific American.Google Scholar
  6. Brooks, K. M. (1997). Do story agents use rocking chairs? The theory and implementation of one model for computational narrative. Fourth ACM multimedia conference.Google Scholar
  7. Chatman S. (1978) Story and discourse. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  8. Crampes, M., & Ranwez, S. (2000). Ontology-supported and ontology-driven conceptual navigation on the world wide web. 11th ACM hypertext conference.Google Scholar
  9. Crofts, N., Doerr, M., Gill, T., Stead, S. & Stiff, M. (2005). CIDOC-CRM Version 4.2—Reference Document.Google Scholar
  10. Discovery project, official website. (2008). http://www.discovery-project.eu/.
  11. Doerr M. (2003) The CIDOC conceptual reference module: An ontological approach to semantic interoperability of metadata. AI Magazine archive 24: 75–92Google Scholar
  12. Farquhar, A., Fikes, R., & Rice, J. (1996). The ontolingua server: A tool for collaborative ontology construction. Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  13. Fellbaum C. (eds) (1998) WordNet: An electronic lexical database. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Gábor Nagypál, Richard Deswart, Oosthoek J. (2005) Applying the semantic web: The VICODI experience in creating visual contextualization. Literary and Linguisting Computing 20: 327–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gangemi, A., & Mika, P. (2003). Understanding the semantic web through descriptions and situations. International conference on ontologies, databases and applications of semantics (ODBASE).Google Scholar
  16. Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A., & Schneider, L. (2002). Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE. 13th international conference on knowledge engineering and knowledge management (EKAW02).Google Scholar
  17. Gruber, T. (1993). In Guarino, N. & Poli, R. (Ed). Formal ontology in conceptual analysis and knowledge representation. Boston: Kulwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Hildebrand, M., van Ossenbruggen, J., & Hardman, L. (2006). /facet: A Browser for Heterogeneous Semantic Web Repositories. International Semantic Web Conference—ISWC2006.Google Scholar
  19. Hyvonen E., Ruotsalo T., Haggstrom T., Salminen M., Junnila M., Virkkila M., Haaramo M., Kauppinen T., Makela E., Viljanen K. (2008) CultureSampo—Finnish culture on the semantic web. The vision and first results. In: Robering K. (eds) Information technology for the virtual museum. LIT Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. Kalfoglou Y., Schorlemmer M. (2003) Ontology mapping: The state of the art. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18: 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirschner P., Shum S.B., Carr C. (2003) Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. Springer-Verlag, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Lenat D. B., Guha R.V. (1990) Building large knowledge-based systems: Representation and inference in the Cyc project. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  23. Mizoguchi R. (2004) Tutorial on ontological engineering—part 3: Advanced course of ontological engineering. New Generation Computing 22: 198–220Google Scholar
  24. Motta E. (1999) Reusable components for knowledge modelling—principles and case studies in parametric design problem solving. IOS Press, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  25. Mulholland, P., Collins, T., & Zdrahal, Z. (2004). Story fountain: Intelligent support for story research and exploration. 9th international conference on intelligent user interface.Google Scholar
  26. Niepert, M., Buckner, C., & Allen, C. (2007). A dynamic ontology for a dynamic reference work. Joint conference on digital libraries (JDCL-07).Google Scholar
  27. Nowviskie, B. (2005). COLLEX: Semantic collections & exhibits for the remixable web. http://www.nines.org/about/Nowviskie-Collex.pdf.
  28. Noy, N. F., & McGuinness, D. L. (2001). Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology. Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report.Google Scholar
  29. Nucci, M., David, S., Hahn, D., & Barbera, M. (2007) Talia: A framework for philosophy scholars. SWAP 2007, the 4th Italian semantic web workshop.Google Scholar
  30. Pasin, M., & Motta, E. (2005). Semantic learning narratives. International workshop on applications of semantic web technologies for e-learning (SWEL).Google Scholar
  31. Pasin, M., & Motta, E. (2007). Supporting philosophers’ work through the semantic web: Ontological issues. Fifth international workshop on ontologies and semantic web for e-learning (SWEL-07).Google Scholar
  32. Pasin, M., Motta, E. & Zdrahal, Z. (2007). Capturing knowledge about philosophy. International conference on knowledge capture (KCAP’07).Google Scholar
  33. Pichler, A. (2002). Encoding Wittgenstein. Some remarks on Wittgenstein’s Nachlass the Bergen Electronic Edition, and future electronic publishing and networking. trans. Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften 10.Google Scholar
  34. Ranganathan S. R. (1990) Elements of library classification. : South Asia Books,Google Scholar
  35. Rugg G., Mcgeorge P. (2005) The sorting techniques: A tutorial paper on card sorts, picture sorts and item sorts. Expert Systems 22: 94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schraefel, M. C. et al. (2005). The mSpace classical music explorer: Improving access to classical music for real people. V MusicNetwork Open Workshop: Integration of music in multimedia applications.Google Scholar
  37. Stenius E. (1960) Wittgenstein’s “Tractatus”: A critical exposition of the main lines of thought. Blackwell Publishers, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Vieira, J. M., & Ciula, A. (2007). Implementing an RDF/OWL ontology on Henry the III fine rolls. OWLED (ESWC 07).Google Scholar
  39. Vygotsky L. (1978) Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. W3C. OWL web ontology language overview. (2004). http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/.
  41. Welty C., Jenkins J. (1999) An ontology for subject. Journal of Data and Knowledge Engineering 31: 155–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wittgenstein L. (1922) Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Zúñiga, G. L. (2001). Ontology: Its transformation from philosophy to information systems. Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Knowledge Media InstituteOpen UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations