1 / 47

Ontology, Epistemology, Teleology: Triangulating Geographic Information Science

Ontology, Epistemology, Teleology: Triangulating Geographic Information Science. Symposium in Honor of Professor Andrew Frank’s 60th Birthday University of Vienna, Austria, June 30 – July 1, 2008 Helen Couclelis University of California, Santa Barbara.

van
Download Presentation

Ontology, Epistemology, Teleology: Triangulating Geographic Information Science

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ontology, Epistemology, Teleology:Triangulating Geographic Information Science Symposium in Honor of Professor Andrew Frank’s 60th Birthday University of Vienna, Austria, June 30 – July 1, 2008 Helen CouclelisUniversity of California, Santa Barbara

  2. Was wir als Wirklichkeit wahrnehmen, ist unsere Erfindung • Heinz von FoersterUniversity of Vienna • What we perceive as reality is our own invention

  3. Aristotle… • Ontology: • what exists in a world • Epistemology: • how we know what we know • Teleology: • the reasons why things are as they are

  4. Ontology – Epistemology how can we tell if two arbitrary ontologies are compatible? how can we tell if a specific ontology is complete and internally consistent? Ontology – Teleology how can we represent artificial objects and purposeful change within the same ontology as natural objects and causal change? Teleology – Epistemology how do we know if an ontology is appropriate for particular user purposes? what is the role of cognitive semantics in helping decide among competing ontologies?

  5. ONTOLOGY ? EPISTEMOLOGY TELEOLOGY

  6. An GI ontology built on information • Information is … • …a natural basis for an information science • …a relational rather than an absolute concept • > link with teleology • …forcing us to clarify the logical relationship between an ontology and the empirical world • > link with epistemology • …discrete, facilitating a constructivist approach • Information >>> Information objects

  7. ONTOLOGY IN FOR MATION EPISTEMOLOGY TELEOLOGY

  8. The purpose of my paper • To explore • the potential contributions of epistemology and teleology to GI science • the promise of an ontology built on the notions of information and information objects

  9. The plan of the paper • 1 What is the problem? • 2 Ontology, epistemology, teleology • 3 Sketch for an information-based ontology • 4 Triangulating geographic information science • 5 Looking ahead

  10. We are not yet done with foundational work in GI science… • There are still many unresolved issues in GI ontology development • time, change, uncertainty and vagueness, interoperability,… • All of what GIS represent bears the mark of human intentionality - in one or two different ways • There is a plethora of ontologies with uncertain connections to one another • We haven’t yet sorted out the essential role of semantics and cognition(‘cognitive semantics’) 1 What is the problem?

  11. The protagonists • Ontology • a formal and explicit specification of a sharedconceptualization • Epistemology • the nature and scope of knowledge • Teleology • the study of the purpose and reason of things • normative thinking • functions • designs 2 Ontology, epistemology, teleology

  12. GIS & TRADITIONAL SCIENCES Analysis From instances to principles Causal Descriptive Positive IS THE DESIGN SCIENCES Synthesis From principles to instances Purpose-oriented (telic) Prescriptive Normative (deontic) OUGHT Contrast the dominant positive stance of GIS with the normative stance of the design sciences: 2 Ontology, epistemology, teleology

  13. Normative versus Causal logic • Normative: Causal: • what xin order for yybecausex • Translated to space: • what purposein order forspatial configuration • what spatial configuration in order forpurpose • versus • process x causes spatial pattern y • spatial pattern y is caused by process x 2 Ontology, epistemology, teleology

  14. Normative areas of thought • Planning, engineering, design • at any granularity • Herbert Simon’s Sciences of the Artificial • Artificial intelligence • Cybernetics • Plan generation • Frames • Expert systems • Agent-based systems

  15. e.g., the DEON conference series on deontic logic in computer science: • “…designed to promote interdisciplinary cooperation amongst scholars interested in linking the formal-logical study of normative concepts and normative systems with computer science, artificial intelligence*, philosophy, organization theory and law” • * e.g., agent-based systems • see DEON’08: http:deon2008.uni.lu/cfp.html

  16. land coverversusland use: • The archetypal geographical example of the difference between the positive and the normative stance

  17. Traditional GIS representations of land use • Logical Relations • Taxonomic (kind-of) • Compositional (part-of) Anderson et al (1976) Worboys & Hornsby (2004)

  18. Traditional GIS representations of land use • Entities • Zones • Features • Objects • Attributes • ……. • (purpose) • Purpose is just • a label

  19. 3 Sketch for an information-based ontology • We may, therefore, say that a world of chance is simply our actual world viewed from the standpoint of an animal at the very vanishing point of intelligence. • C. S. Peirce

  20. Constructing a semantic hierarchy We can speak of semantic resolution as we do of spatial, temporal and attribute resolution We can construct geographic informationobjectsgradually by enriching the semantics at each consecutive level of a hierarchy (by ‘adding intelligence’)

  21. Levels 1 existence 2 observables 3 similarities 4 simple objects 5 complex objects 6 function 7purpose Cognitive stanceAspects awareness perception classification categorization name association constitution instrumentality agentive dimension intentionality telic dimension Constructing geographic information objects

  22. Constructing spatial information objects • Arrays of Topons & Chronons: G, X • information objects are mereological sums of topons persisting through chronons… • …plus information in the form of properties • Domains of relevant properties are defined at each level: P1, P2, …P7 • “does information object Oi have property Pij?” • A stepwise, systematic, cumulative augmentation of object descriptions

  23. Representing spatial information objects the property sheet xt P1 P2 P3 ... Pn p1 p21 p2h p2k p31 p3h p3j pn1 pnh pnp g1 1 1…0…1 0…0…1 ... 1...1…..0 g2 1 0…0.. 0.6 1…1…1 ... 0 ..0..…0 . . gm 1 1…1…0 0…0…1 ... 1 ..1…..1

  24. Representing spatial information objects: L1, Existence the property sheet xt P1 p1 g1 1 g2 1 . . gm 1

  25. Representing spatial information objects: L2, Observables the property sheet xt P1 P2 p1 p21 p2h p2k g1 1 1…0…1 g2 1 0…0.. 0.6 . . gm 1 1…1…0

  26. Representing spatial information objects: L3, Similarities the property sheet xt P1 P2 P3 p1 p21 p2h p2k p31 p3h p3j g1 1 1…0…1 0…0…1 g2 1 0…0.. 0.6 1…1…1 . . gm 1 1…1…0 0…0…1

  27. Representing spatial information objects: L7, Purpose the property sheet xt P1 P2 P3 ... P7 p1 p21 p2h p2k p31 p3h p3j p71 p7h p7p g1 1 1…0…1 0…0…1 ... 1...1…..0 g2 1 0…0.. 0.6 1…1…1 ... 0 ..0..…0 . . gm 1 1…1…0 0…0…1 ... 1 ..1…..1

  28. The 7 levels of description: axioms Level 0: Space, Time, ’Stuff’ Space and time are discrete; the units of space and time are topons and chronons ‘Stuff’ exists as a granular plenum in space and time The observation and measurementof properties occurs at specific topons and chronons Various degrees of intelligence are required to interpret observations at different levels of sophistication

  29. The 7 levels of description (1) Existence Level 1 : at each chronon x  X there is a discrete plenum of topons g  G Topons are endowed with ‘stuff’

  30. The 7 levels of description (2) Observables Level 2: differences among qualities of topons are perceived these qualities cannot yet be measured – they are qualia

  31. The 7 levels of description (3) Similarities Level 3 : observable differences are now measurable and communicable Measurements give rise to a discrete classified field

  32. The 7 levels of description (4) Simple (connected) objects Level 4: the classified patches of Level 3 are identified and named as individual information objects These correspond to ordinary geographic entities recognized by current ontologies

  33. The 7 levels of description (5) Complex objects Level 5: a space of complex (non-contiguous) information objects connected through non-spatial (functional, gestalt, or other) relations These correspond to empirical entities such as Airports, towns, the Philippines,…

  34. The 7 levels of description (6) Function • Of the object represented (often) • Of the representation itself (always) Function is closely bound with purpose means <> ends <<< design analysis >>>

  35. The 7 levels of description (7) Purpose Level 7: spatial information objects serving or designed for a purpose Again, 2 kinds objects have purpose (often) representations have purpose (always) No direct spatial expression, but linked with means means <> ends

  36. Human purpose shapes space in time • Human purpose shapes geographic representations • We must approach the framework from the level of purpose down • mode of use vs. mode of generation

  37. Representing spatial information objects: L7, Purpose the property sheet xt P1 P2 P3 ... P7 p1 p21 p2h p2k p31 p3h p3j p71 p7h p7p g1 1 1…0…1 0…0…1 ... 1...1…..0 g2 1 0…0.. 0.6 1…1…1 ... 0 ..0..…0 . . gm 1 1…1…0 0…0…1 ... 1 ..1…..1

  38. Representing spatial information objects: L3, Similarities the property sheet xt P1 P2 P3 p1 p21 p2h p2k p31 p3h p3j g1 1 1…0…1 0…0…1 g2 1 0…0.. 0.6 1…1…1 . . gm 1 1…1…0 0…0…1

  39. Representing spatial information objects: L2, Observables the property sheet xt P1 P2 p1 p21 p2h p2k g1 1 1…0…1 g2 1 0…0.. 0.6 . . gm 1 1…1…0

  40. Representing spatial information objects: L1, Existence the property sheet xt P1 p1 g1 1 g2 1 . . gm 1

  41. 4 Triangulating geographic information science ONTOLOGY EPISTEMOLOGY TELEOLOGY IN FORMATION Mapping ontologies into the hierarchical framework

  42. Ontology – Epistemology • How can we tell if two arbitrary ontologies are compatible? • Generative relations among levels suggest ontology mappings into the framework • Category theory • Overlap of the mappings > > degree of ontology compatibility How can we tell if a specific ontology is complete and internally consistent? • -There should be continuity across levels and consistency in the mapping

  43. Mapping ontologies into the framework (a) Ontology compatibility (b) Ontology consistency and completeness

  44. Ontology – Teleology • How can we represent artificial objects and purposeful change within the same ontology as natural objects and causal change? • artificial objects exist for a purpose • they must have a L7 representation • natural and artificial objects belong in different ontological categories • similar to the is / ought distinction • but natural objects may also serve a purpose • affordances • Purpose may minimize or exaggerate the natural-artificial distinction

  45. Teleology – Epistemology • How do we know if a particular ontology is appropriate for particular user purposes? • locate the purposes of interest at Level 7… • follow the threads down to Level 1 • What is the role of cognitive semantics in helping decide among competing ontologies? • a good question for the future…

  46. Concluding thoughts • There is still considerable foundational work left to be done in Geographic Information Science

  47.  (Greek: purpose, end)

More Related