Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On Perspectivism of Information System Ontologies

  • Published:
Foundations of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The growing diffusion of perspectivism within the debate on information system ontologies [ISOs] does not correspond to a thorough analysis of what perspectivism specifically consists of. This paper aims to fill this void. First, I show what supporting perspectivism in information system ontologies [PISO] means in terms of (minimal) claims and implications; then I argue that the definitions of ISO implicitly assume PISO’s (minimal) claims or, in other words, that ISOs presuppose and maintain PISO. Section 2 presents the main definitions of ISO. Section 3 specifies what claims are common to all perspectivists in ISO. Sects. 4–7 analyze the implications of those claims. Section 8 explores the chance of multiple perspectivisms within ISOs’ domain. Finally, Sects. 9–10 assume that, if PISO’s (minimal) claims and (their) implications can be inferred from ISO’s definitions, then ISOs are perspectivist, or PISO’s minimal claims are assumptions underlying ISOs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “Scientific knowledge” means to include scientific representations, modeling practices, data gathering, data analysis, and scientific theories involved in the production of scientific knowledge. “Being situated” highlights that our scientific knowledge is the product of the historical period and/or prevailing cultural tradition to/in which those scientific representations, modeling practices, data gathering, and scientific theories belong/were formulated (Massimi 2018a, p. 164).

  2. On PPS, see also Giere (2006), Chakravartty (2010), Agazzi (2014), Massimi (2018b, 2022), Bschir (2020), Chang (2020), Massimi and McCoy (2020), Saatsi (2020), Teller (2020).

  3. On this mutual “little attention”, see Burgin (2010), Keen et al. (2012), Mazzocchi (2018), Wang and Wang (2020).

  4. See, for example, Desrosières (1998), Hacking (1999), Floridi (2011), Romele et al. (2020).

  5. See also Tambassi (2021).

  6. Against [8], some perspectivists (see Grenon 2008) specify that for “domain” it is basically meant “domain of reality”, so that

    1. [A]

      PISO deals (only) with (the investigation of) reality.

    Against [A], I maintain that its supporters generally side with realist PISO (Munn 2008, p. 11). And insofar as Sect. 8 shows that PISO is not necessarily committed to realism, the reason why I embrace [8] instead of A is that [8] intends to be inclusive for any variety of PISO, including the realist one.

  7. A referee rightly pointed out that, so conceived, a) a representation seems to be a primitive concept and b) the relation between perspective and representation may indicate they be synonymous. In Tambassi (2023), I argue against both a) and b), by maintaining that perspective and representation refer to two different stages of ISOs’ developing: the former consisting in partitioning a domain (of interest) into different entities (see also Sect. 7), the latter systematizing the entities emerging from the partition within ISOs’ representational primitives – namely classes, relations, properties, and individuals. I guess the argument also explains why I do not consider a representation as a primitive concept.

  8. It might be argued that, if so, I1 would also extend the subjective dimension of the notion of perspective to the choice of the domain to represent. About the issues of subjectivism/objectivism in ISOs’ debate, see Guarino (1995), Ciotti and Tomasi (2016).

  9. For a deeper investigation on [29] and on the distinction among PISO, realist PISO, and relativist ISO, see Tambassi (2022).

  10. From this it also follows that:

    [B] [45] is consistent with [44],

    [C] [45] does not add further theses [44].

    [C], however, does not formally exclude the chance of different PISOs (see [26–27] and [47]) adding further theses and/or restrictions to [44].

References

  • Agazzi, E. (2014). Scientific objectivity and its contexts. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Agazzi, E. (2016). Scientific realism within perspectivism and perspectivism within scientific realism. Axiomathes, 26, 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-016-9304-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernaras, A., Laresgoiti, I., \& Corera, J. (1996). Building and reusing ontologies for electrical network applications. In Proceedings of the European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI_96) (pp. 298–302). Budapest, Hungary.

  • Bittner, T., \& Smith, B. (2008). A theory of granular partitions. In Munn, K., \& Smith, B. (eds.), Applied Ontology. An Introduction (pp. 125–158). Ontos-Verlag.

  • Borst, W. N. (1997). Construction of engineering ontologies. University of Tweenty, Enschede.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bschir, K. (2020). Perspectivism in current epigenetics. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 10, 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00302-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullinger, A. (2008). Innovation and ontologies. Structuring the early stages of innovation management. Gabler.

  • Burgin, M. (2010). Theory of information: Fundamentality. World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakravartty, A. (2010). Perspectivism, inconsistent models, and contrastive explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 41, 405–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H. (2020). Pragmatism, perspectivism, and the historicity of science. In M. Massimi & C. D. McCoy (Eds.), Understanding perspectivism (pp. 10–27). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciotti, F., & Tomasi, F. (2016). Formal ontologies, linked data and TEI semantics. Journal of the Text Encoding Initiative, 9, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.4000/jtei.1480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desrosières, A. (1998). The politics of large numbers: A history of statistical reasoning. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fensel, D. (2001). Ontologies: A silver bullet for knowledge management and electronic commerce. Springer.

  • Fikes, R., & Farquhar, A. (1999). Distributed Repositories of highly expressive reusable ontologies. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14(2), 73–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, L. (2011). The philosophy of information. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. (2006). Scientific perspectivism. University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goy, A., \& Magro, D. (2015). What are ontologies useful for? Encyclopedia of information science and technology (pp. 7456–7464). IGI Global.

  • Grenon, P. (2008). A primer on knowledge management and ontological engineering. In Munn, K., \& Smith, B. (eds.), Applied ontology. An Introduction (pp. 57–81). Ontos-Verlag.

  • Gruber, T. R. (2009). Ontology. In Liu, L., \& Özsu, M. T. (eds.), Encyclopedia of database systems. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-39940-9_1318

  • Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guarino, N. (1998). Formal ontology and information systems. In Proceedings of FOIS ’98. Trento, Italy (pp. 3–15). IOS Press.

  • Guarino, N. (1995). Formal ontology, conceptual analysis, and knowledge representation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 625–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guarino, N., & Giaretta, P. (1995). Ontologies and knowledge bases—Towards a terminological clarification. In N. J. Mars (Ed.), Towards very large knowledge bases—Knowledge building and knowledge sharing (pp. 25–32). IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, W. (2002). Ontologie(n). Informatik Spektrum, 25(6), 477–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaziri, W., \& Gargouri, F. (2010). Ontology theory, management and design: An overview and future directions. In Gargouri, F., \& Jaziri, W. (eds.), Ontology theory, management and design: Advanced tools and models. Information Science Reference.

  • Jensen, L. (2008). Categories: The top-level ontology. In Munn, K., \& Smith, B. (eds.), Applied ontology. An introduction (pp. 173–196). Ontos-Verlag.

  • Keen, E., Keen, C., \& Milton, S. (2012). The relevance of perspectivism to the task of modularisation in ontology development. In Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian conference on information systems 3–5th December 2012. Deakin University, Geelong.

  • Krcmar, H. (2005). Informations management. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurini, R. (2017). Geographic knowledge infrastructure: Applications to territorial intelligence and smart cities. ISTE-Elsevier.

  • Massimi, M., \& McCoy, C. D. (eds.) (2020). Understanding perspectivism: Scientific challenges and methodological prospects. Routledge.

  • Massimi, M. (2018a). Perspectivism. In J. Saatsi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of scientific realism (pp. 164–175). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massimi, M. (2018b). Perspectival modeling. Philosophy of Science, 85(3), 335–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massimi, M. (2022). Perspectival ontology: Between situated knowledge and multiculturalism. The Monist, 105(2), 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onab032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzocchi, F. (2018). Knowledge organization system (KOS): An introductory critical account. Knowledge Organization, 45(1), 54–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizoguchi, R. (2003). Tutorial on ontological engineering: Part 01: Introduction to ontological engineering. New Generation Computing, 21(4), 365–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munn, K. (2008). Introduction: What is ontology for? In Munn, K., \& Smith, B. (eds.), Applied ontology. An introduction (pp. 7–19). Ontos-Verlag.

  • Neches, R., Fikes, R. E., Finin, T., Gruber, T. R., Senator, T., & Swartout, W. R. (1991). Enabling technology for knowledge sharing. AI Magazine, 12(3), 36–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noy, N. F., & McGuinness, D. L. (2003). Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology. Stanford University.

  • Romele, A., Severo, M., & Furia, P. (2020). Digital hermeneutics: From interpreting with machines to interpretational machines. AI & Society, 35, 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-018-0856-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saatsi, J. (2020). Realism and explanatory perspectivism. In M. Massimi & C. D. McCoy (Eds.), Understanding perspectivism (pp. 65–84). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B., & Klagges, B. (2008). Philosophy and biomedical information systems. In Munn, K., \& Smith, B. (eds.), Applied ontology. An Introduction (pp. 21–37). Ontos-Verlag.

  • Smith, B. (2008). The benefits of realism: A realist logic with applications. In Munn, K., \& Smith, B. (eds.), Applied ontology. An Introduction (pp. 109–24). Ontos-Verlag.

  • Sowa, J. F. (2000). Guided tour of ontology. http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/guided.htm

  • Studer, R., Benjamins, V. R., & Fensel, D. (1998). Knowledge engineering: Principles and methods. IEEE Transactions on Data and Knowledge Engineering, 25(1–2), 161–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swartout, B., Ramesh, P., Knight, K., \& Russ, T. (1997). Toward distributed use of large-scale ontologies. In AAAI symposium on ontological engineering. Stanford (CA).

  • Tambassi, T. (2021). The philosophy of geo-ontologies. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tambassi, T. (2022). Ontological perspectivism and geographical categorizations. Philosophia, 50, 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-021-00371-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tambassi, T. (2023). Being perspectivist on information system ontologies. Under review.

  • Teller, P. (2020). What is perspectivism, and does it count as realism? In M. Massimi & C. D. McCoy (Eds.), Understanding perspectivism (pp. 49–64). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uschold, M., \& Grueninger, M. (1996). Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications. Technical Report of the Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute, No. 191. Scotland, Edinburgh.

  • Uschold, M. (1996). Building ontologies: Towards a unified methodology. Technical Report of the Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute, No. 197. Edinburgh, Scotland.

  • Uschold, M., \& Jasper, R. (1999). A framework for understanding and classifying ontology applications. In Proceedings of the IJCAI99 workshop on ontologies and problem-solving method. Stockholm, Sweden.

  • Uschold, M. (1998). Knowledge level modelling: Concepts and terminology. Knowledge Engineering Review, 13(1), 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, P., \& Wang, J. (2020). Information ontology as anti-metaphysics. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on philosophy of information, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2–6 June 2019, no. 1:52. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2020047052

  • Zelewski, S., Schuette, R., \& Siedentopf, J. (2001). Ontologien zur Repraesentation von Domaenen. In Schreyoegg, G. (ed.), Wissen in Unternehmen. Konzepte, Massnahmen, Methoden (pp. 183–221). Erich Schmidt Verlag.

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy

    Timothy Tambassi

  2. University of Eastern Piedmont, Vercelli, Italy

    Timothy Tambassi

Authors
  1. Timothy Tambassi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy Tambassi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tambassi, T. On Perspectivism of Information System Ontologies. Found Sci (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-023-09900-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-023-09900-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation