Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 33, No. 408. Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London Hosted by King's Digital Lab www.dhhumanist.org Submit to: firstname.lastname@example.org  From: Iian Neill
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 33.398: non-hierarchical concept ontologies? (78)  From: Willard McCarty Subject: ontology, ontologies & hierarchy (23) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2019-11-14 12:13:31+00:00 From: Iian Neill Subject: Re: [Humanist] 33.398: non-hierarchical concept ontologies? Dear Chris, I don't have any papers to reference on this concept as yet, although I will be touching on it a forthcoming paper, but in our Codex project we are exploring the application of something I call "aspect-oriented" ontology to texts. The name is taken from the use of "aspects" in programming languages which support attributes applied to classes and methods. Aspects are used to implement cross-cutting (horizontal) concerns in software -- likewise, in an "aspect-oriented" ontology there are concepts which can be thought of as cutting across type classifications. For example, the aspect "Florentine" may not only apply to persons but to objects, cuisine, schools of art, etc. Best regards, Iian On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 18:29, Humanist wrote: > Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 33, No. 398. > Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London > Hosted by King's Digital Lab > www.dhhumanist.org > Submit to: email@example.com > > > > > Date: 2019-11-12 12:41:17+00:00 > From: Jan Christophe Meister > Subject: Non-hierarchical concept ontologies > > Dear All, > > for the next development phase of our text annotation and analysis tool > CATMA (https://catma.de) we'd like to find out more about the theory, > the epistemic benefits and the computational approaches toward what we > have tentatively called "non-hierarchical concept ontologies". Here's why: > > In CATMA (as in many other annotation tools that implement markup > schemata) a concept ontology takes on the form of a tagset, which - in > the UI as well as conceptually - is presented to the user as a tree > data-structure. One of CATMA's core features, however, is the ability > to extend and modify tagsets 'on the fly' while annotating documents, > something which our users tend to do quite regularly. And sooner or > later they then come up with the idea that they would want to re-order > tags and sub-tags across established parent-child-dependencies. This is > where things become interesting not just pragmatically (we use a graph > data base, so dependencies could in principle be re-calculated and > re-mapped), but more so conceptually. In this perspective the question > is not just whether one can fix and/or extend an existing > structure/ontology - the question is whether one can productively THINK > a non-hierarchical concept ontology and clearly identify its heuristic > added value. What exactly is the added value of a 'fact-turned-category' > derived from a triple-store query, and what are its limits? > > Against this backdrop I'd like to ask whether HUMANIST readers could > point me to philosophical as well as CS approaches - literature, > projects, etc. - that reflect on the philosophical as well as the > computational affordances and constraints of concept ontologies that > might be anything but hierarchically ordered: e.g. networked, > distributional, probabilistic, etc. > > Many thanks, > > Chris > > > -------------------------------- > Dr. Jan Christoph Meister > Universitätsprofessor für Digital Humanities > Schwerpunkt Deutsche Literatur und Textanalyse > Institut fü¼r Germanistik > Universität Hamburg > Überseering 35 > 22 297 Hamburg > +49 40 42838 2972 > +49 172 40865 41 > http://jcmeister.de -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2019-11-14 08:29:25+00:00 From: Willard McCarty Subject: ontology, ontologies & hierarchy Chris Meister's question about non-hierarchical concept ontologies leads me to wonder whether the pluralisation of 'ontology' in the late 1940s by Quine (who was not unfamiliar with digital logic and computing), followed by the quiet adoption of the term in computer science much later, provides some insight. Specifically, might it be the case that by pluralising the term ontological hierarchy is undermined? I had occasion to look into the history of 'ontology' for a workshop at Cambridge in 2017, the outcome of which was published in HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 9.1 (2017): 147-61. See esp. pp. 149-51. Should anyone know of material related to 'ontology' in CS or elsewhere that I did not catch, I'd be grateful to know about it. Yours, WM -- Willard McCarty (www.mccarty.org.uk/), Professor emeritus, Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London; Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (www.tandfonline.com/loi/yisr20) and Humanist (www.dhhumanist.org) _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted List posts to: firstname.lastname@example.org List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/ Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php
Editor: Willard McCarty (King's College London, U.K.; Western Sydney University, Australia)
Software designer: Malgosia Askanas (Mind-Crafts)
This site is maintained under a service level agreement by King's Digital Lab.