Advertisement

Challenges for Ontological Engineering in the Humanities – A Case Study of Philosophy

  • Pawel Garbacz
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 544)

Abstract

The paper develops an idea of an engineering ontology whose purpose is to represent philosophy as a research discipline in the humanities. I discuss a three recent attempts in this respect with the aim to identify their modelling potential. The upshot of this analysis leads to a new conceptual framework for ontological engineering for philosophy. I show how this framework can be implemented in the form of a simple OWL ontology.

Keywords

Ontology Development Engineering Ontology Philosophical Idea Propositional Structure Resource Content 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barsalou, L.W.: Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In: Lehrer, A., Kittay, E.F. (eds.) Frames, Fields, and Contrasts, pp. 21–74. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buckner, C., Niepert, M., Allen, C.: From encyclopedia to ontology: Toward dynamic representation of the discipline of philosophy. Synthese 182(2), 205–233 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Correia, F., Schnieder, B.: Grounding: an opinionated introduction. In: Metaphysical Grounding, pp. 1–36. Cambridge University Press (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DCU Ontology Team: NeMO - NeDiMAH Methods Ontology. NeMO Entity Class Definitions. Tech. Rep. 0.1, Digital Curation Unit (2015). http://www.nedimah.eu/reports/developing-nemo-nedimah-methods-ontology
  5. 5.
    DIorio, P.: Discovery. D1.8 Final Report. Tech. rep. (2009). http://www.discovery-project.eu/reports/discovery-final-report.pdf
  6. 6.
    Doerr, M.: The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Module: An Ontological Approach to Semantic Interoperability of Metadata. AI Magazine 24(3), 75–92 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hennicke, S., Gradmann, S., Dill, K., Tschumpel, G., Thoden, K., Morbindoni, C., Pichler, A.: D3.4 Research Report on DH Scholarly Primitives. Tech. rep. (2015). http://dm2e.eu/files/D3.4_1.0_Research_Report_on_DH_Scholarly_Primitives_150210.pdf
  8. 8.
    IFLA: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report. K. G. Saur (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pasin, M., Motta, E.: Ontological requirements for annotation and navigation of philosophical resources. Synthese 182(2), 235–267 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pichler, A., Zöllner-Weber, A.: Sharing and debating Wittgenstein by using an ontology. Literary and Linguistic Computing 28(4), 700–707 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schaffer, J.: On what grounds what. In: Metametaphysics: new essays on the foundations of ontology, pp. 347–383. Oxford University Press (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schaffer, J.: Grounding, transitivity, and contrastivity. In: Metaphysical Grounding: Understanding the Structure of Reality, pp. 122–38 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Veltman, K.H.: Towards a Semantic Web for Culture. Journal of Digital Information 4(4) (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyThe John Paul II Catholic University of LublinLublinPoland

Personalised recommendations