Abstract
Insofar as disagreement may in principle regard most of (maybe all) facets of information system ontologies’ [ISOs] debate, it may also produce a plurality of views – sometimes inconsistent with each other – on ISOs’ development and design. This paper analyzes a view that makes the recognition of – and provides a theoretical foundation for – such a plurality of views a trademark: perspectivism (on ISOs). The aim is to show what exactly endorsing perspectivism consists of, and how perspectivism differs from different, competing views. Section 2 introduces the main claims of perspectivism, and remarks that perspectivism mainly deals with ISOs’ development and design. As for ISOs’ development, Sect. 3 considers domain’s partition and systematization, by distinguishing perspectivism from realism and relativism. Section 3 also shows that perspectivism implies some sort of variantism on ISOs’ representational primitives, about which perspectivism may not differ from its rivals. As for the ISOs’ design, Sect. 4 points out that despite perspectivism grants the possibility to use any procedural approach, principle, and ontological language, it is not committed to uphold that all those approaches, principles, and languages are legitimate. Finally, Sect. 5 focuses on both perspectivism’s weaknesses and (theoretical) contribution to ISOs’ debate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Not applicable.
Notes
The theoretical approach of this paper is the result of practical considerations about ISOs’ development and design that I have discussed in some recent papers. More specifically, in Tambassi (2023), I analyzed how the most cited definitions of ISOs implicitly assume the claims of perspectivism that I introduce in Sect. 2. In Tambassi (2022ab, 2024), I showed that ISOs can arbitrarily integrate and mix different assumptions, thus leaving the door open for perspectivism. Finally, in Tambassi (Inpress) I discussed how perspectivism can emerge from (the use of) different ontological languages. Therefore, I believe that discussing what it means to be perspectivist about ISOs could help to clarify the theoretical assumptions behind all these practical considerations, which in turn should provide the basis for endorsing this kind of perspectivism.
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 Sect. 3, 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, the latter systematizing the entities emerging from the partition within ISOs’ representational primitives – namely classes, relations, properties, and instances. I guess the argument also explains why I do not consider a representation as a primitive concept (see also Tambassi, 2023).
See, among the others, Noy and McGuinness (2003).
On the debate on ISOs’ design, see also Kabila (2007). For the wider debate on design in computer science, see Turner (2018).
See for example Tambassi (2022a).
ISOs using Semantic web languages such as OWL and RDFS are traditionally considered under OWA, whereas ISOs adopting languages such as F-logic or Prolog under CWA (see Reiter (1977); Minker (1982); Razniewski et al. (2016). An example of assumption lying between OWA and CWA is the partial-closed world assumption, maintaining the possibility of ISOs that are complete in specified parts and incomplete in other parts (where contents are unknown or potentially missing) (see Lutz et al., 2012; Razniewski et al., 2016).
Although I am not so comfortable talking in terms of advantages and disadvantages, I think that [48] and [49] on the one hand and [50] on the other hand could also be respectively interpreted as advantages and disadvantages of perspectivism compared to rival views. In Tambassi (2023) I also argued that both relativism and realism on ISOs start from perspectivism and add some more claims. And more claims generally mean more constraints.
References
Baader, F., & Nutt, W. (2007). Basic description logics. In F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, & P. Patel-Schneider (Eds.), The description logic handbook: Theory, implementation and applications (pp. 47–104). Cambridge University Press.
Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Lutz, C., & Sattler, U. (2017). An introduction to description logic. Cambridge University Press.
Berto, F., & Plebani, M. (2015). Ontology and Meta-Ontology. A contemporary guide. Bloomsbury.
Bittner, T., & Smith, B. (2008). A theory of Granular partitions. In K. Munn, & B. Smith (Eds.), Applied Ontology. An introduction (pp. 125–158). Ontos-Verlag.
Burgin, M. (2010). Theory of information: Fundamentality, Diversity and Unification. World Scientific.
Casati, R., Smith, B., & Varzi, A. C. (1998). Ontological tools for geographic representation. In N. Guarino (Ed.), Formal ontology in information systems (pp. 77–85). IOS Press.
Cumpa, J. (2019). Structure and completeness: A defense of Factualism in Categorial Ontology. Acta Analytica, 34(2), 145–153.
d’Aquin, M. (2009). Formally measuring agreement and disagreement in ontologies. In International Conference on Knowledge Capture - K-CAP 2009, 01–04 Sep 2009, Los Angeles, USA, pp. 145–142.
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 K. Munn, & B. Smith (Eds.), Applied Ontology. An introduction (pp. 57–81). Ontos-Verlag.
Gruber, T. R. (2009). Ontology. In Liu L, Özsu MT (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Database Systems. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-39940-9_1318
Guarino, N. (1994). The ontological level. In R. Casati, B. Smith, & G. White (Eds.), Philosophy and the Cognitive sciences (pp. 443–458). Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.
Guarino, N. (2009). The ontological level: Revisiting 30 years of knowledge representation. In A. Borgida, V. Chaudhri, P. Giorgini, & E. Yu (Eds.), Conceptual modelling: Foundations and applications. Essays in honor of John Mylopoulos (pp. 52–67). Springer Verlag.
Guizzardi, G., & Mylopoulos, J. (2019). Taking It to the Next Level: Nicola Guarino, Formal Ontology and Conceptual Modeling. In Borgo S, Ferrario R, Masolo C, Vieu L (Eds.) Ontology Makes Sense: Essays in honor of Nicola Guarino, Vol.316, (pp.223–241) Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 316. IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-955-3-223
Henley, S. (2006). The Problem of Missing Data in Geoscience databases. Computers & Geosciences, 32, 1368–1377.
Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2002). A Collaborative Approach to Ontology Design. Communications of the ACM, 45(2), 477–490.
Jaziri, W., & Gargouri, F. (2010). Ontology theory, management and design: An overview and future directions. In F. Gargouri, & W. Jaziri (Eds.), Ontology theory, management and design: Advanced tools and models. Information Science Reference.
Jansen, L. (2008). Categories: The top-level ontology. In K. Munn, & B. Smith (Eds.), Applied Ontology. An introduction (pp. 173–196). Ontos-Verlag.
Kabilan, V. (2007). Ontology for Information Systems (O4IS) Design Methodology: Conceptualizing, Designing and Representing Domain Ontologies. PhD dissertation KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
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.
Laurini, R. (2017). Geographic Knowledge infrastructure: Applications to Territorial Intelligence and Smart cities. ISTE-Elsevier.
Lord, P. (2010). Components of an Ontology. http://ontogenesis.knowledgeblog.org/514
Lutz, C., Seylan, I., & Wolter, F. (2012). Mixing open and closed world assumption in ontology-based data access: Non-uniform data complexity. In: Kazarov Y, Lembo D, Wolter (Eds.) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics, DL 2021, CEUR Workshop Proceedings Volume 846.
Mazzocchi, F. (2018). Knowledge Organization System (KOS): An introductory critical account. Knowledge Organization, 45(1), 54–78.
Minker, J. (1982). On indefinite databases and the closed world assumption. In: Loveland DW (Ed.) 6th Conference on Automated Deduction. CADE 1982. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 138. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 292–308.
Motro, A. (1989). Integrity = Validity Completeness ACM TODS 14(4):480–502.
Munn, K. (2008). Introduction: What is Ontology for? In K. Munn, & B. Smith (Eds.), Applied Ontology. An introduction (pp. 7–19). Ontos-Verlag.
Noy, N. F., & McGuinness, D. L. (2003). Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology. Stanford University.
Pâslaru-Bontaş, E. (2007). A Contextual Approach to Ontology Reuse. Methodology, Methods and Tools for the Semantic Web. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Freien Universitat, Berlin.
Porello, D., & Endriss, U. (2014). Ontology Merging as Social Choice: Judgment Aggregation under the Open World Assumption. Journal of Logic and Computation, 24(6), 1229–1249.
Razniewski, S., Savkovic, O., & Nutt, W. (2016). Turning the Partial-Closed World Assumption Upside Down. In: Pichler R, Soares da Silva A (Eds.) Proceedings of the 10th Alberto Mendelzon International Workshop on Foundations of Data Management, Panama City, Panama, May 8–10, 2016. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 1644, CEUR-WS.org 2016.
Rector, A., Schulz, S., Rodrigues, J. M., Chute, C. G., & Solbrig, H. (2019). On Beyond Gruber: Ontologies in Today’s Biomedical Information systems and the limits of OWL. Journal of Biomedical Informatics: X, 2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjbinx.2019.100002
Reiter, R. (1977). On closed World Data bases. In H. Gallaire, & J. Minker (Eds.), Logic and data bases (pp. 55–76). Springer.
Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2020). Artificial Intelligence. A Modern Approach. Pearson Publications.
Smith, B. (2003). Ontology. In Floridi L (Ed.) Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information (pp. 155–166). Blackwell.
Smith, B. (2008). The benefits of realism: A Realist logic with applications. In K. Munn, & B. Smith (Eds.), Applied Ontology. An introduction (pp. 109–124). Ontos-Verlag.
Smith, B., & Klagges, B. (2008). Philosophy and Biomedical Information Systems. In K. Munn, & B. Smith (Eds.), Applied Ontology. An introduction (pp. 21–37). Ontos-Verlag.
Sofia Pinto, H., & Martins, J. P. (2000). Reusing Ontologies. In Proc. of AAAI2000 Spring Symposium Series, Workshop on Bringing Knowledge to Business Processes (pp. 77–84). AAAI Press.
Staab, S., & Studer, R. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook on ontologies. Springer.
Talebpour, M., Sykora, M., & Jackson, T. (2020). The Evaluation of Ontologies for Quality, Suitability for Reuse, and the Significant Role of Social Factors. In Fred A, Salgado A, Aveiro D, Dietz J, Bernardino J, Filipe J. (Eds.) Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. IC3K 2018 (pp 161–177). Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1222. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49559-6_8
Tambassi, T. (2022a). Completeness in Information System ontologies. Axiomathes, 32(Suppl 2), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-021-09598-9
Tambassi, T. (2022b). On the informativeness of Information System ontologies. Philosophia, 50, 2675–2684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-022-00558-0
Tambassi, T. (2023). On perspectivism of information system ontologies. Foundations of Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-023-09900-5
Tambassi T (2024) For the sake of simplicity applying software design parsimony to the content of information system ontologies. Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce). Forthcoming
Tambassi, T. (Inpress) Are information systems ontologies’ answers open to misunderstanding? Under review.
Turner, R. (2018). Computational artifacts: Towards a philosophy of Computer Science. Springer.
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
Funding
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The author confirms sole responsibility for the following: study conception and design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of results, and manuscript preparation.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Tambassi, T. Being Perspectivist on Information System Ontologies. Found Sci (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-024-09941-4
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-024-09941-4