Practical Ontology Like Things

There are many definitions/descriptions of ‘ontology’ .  One good definition/description of an ontology is provided by the National Library of Medicine on this web page Understanding Ontologies which is: 

  • Ontology: “formal, explicit specification of a shared conceptualization.”  

There are many forms that a shared conceptualization might take.  That same article provides this continuum of representation alternatives:

I call the above continuum of representation alternatives "ontology like things".  My personal working definition/description of an ontology like thing which I believe is practical and understandable is the following:

  • An ontology like thing is a formal, explicit specification of an intended shared conceptualization in logic for an area of knowledge to achieve some specific set of goals/objectives.

The precise definition of the word ontology and which term you use to describe that representation is less important than the intent of the representation.  The way to verify a conceptualization and the specific logic of that conceptualization is via testing.

The language or physical technical format used to represent the logic of the conceptualization described/defined by the ontology like thing is a different issue.  Global standard technical formats are preferred to proprietary formats.

But the ultimate test of an ontology like thing is verification to prove that the logic of the conceptualization works as expected.

The graphic below describes the sorts of things that need to be represented and other decisions which need to be made to express a conceptualization:


The major taxonomic ranks and classifications of things described can vary. But fundamentally, an "ontology" or "ontology like thing" is a tool. 

As a tool, the limitations of the tool must be understood in order to employ the tool effectively. Common criticisms and discussions related to the notion of an ontology include the following:

  • Vagueness and ambiguity: Anything created by humans tends to not be perfect.  What exactly constitutes a “conceptualization”?  What does “explicit specification” actually mean; that might vary significantly between different contexts.
  • Scope and scalability: An ontology like thing should cover all the important necessary aspects of some area of knowledge. Trying to get an ontology like thing to do everything can be challenging.  This is why defining the goals and objectives of the intended use of an ontology like thing is important.
  • Adaptability:  Knowledge is fluid, dynamic; not static.  The world changes, ontology like things need to be adaptable to that changing world.  But ontology like things can tend to be static. Rather, an ontology like thing needs to be adaptable to dynamic environments where new information can be integrated into a system continuously.
  • Context-dependency: Context is important.  What works in one area of knowledge might not work in some other area of knowledge.  Transferability of an ontology from one intended purpose to some other intended purpose or generalizing the ontology like thing may not work.
  • Bias:  Human bias in any ontology like thing must be understood and managed.  Certain ontology like things might not be suitable or optimal for computational systems. Human bias can limit the design and functionality of ontology like things intended for use by artificial intelligence type applications.
  • Interoperability: Many times, ontology like things are meant to solve interoperability problems within systems through the creation of a shared, common understanding; reality is often more complex. Different ontology like things might interpret the same concepts in different ways, leading to difficulties in integrating systems or data that use different frameworks.

These and other criticisms and discussions will continue.  A master craftsmen must have a good understanding of the limitations of their tools.  Criticisms and discussions lead to refinement of the tools.  Use of these tools over time will push the tools towards more dynamic, interoperable, adaptable, context-aware systems.

Additional Information:


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Relational Knowledge Graph System (RKGS)

Image
Relational Knowledge Graph System (RKGS) is an interesting idea that combines the relational paradigm and the knowledge graph paradigm.  This documentation, Why RKGS , explains the idea. This gets even more interesting with the notion of "relational AI".  RelationalAI is described as follows by the company of the same name, Relational.ai : “RelationalAI is a cloud-based relational knowledge graph management system, with state of the art probabilistic processing and declarative reasoning at scale to make developing Data Applications a superpower for your business.” This notion of knowledge graphs represented in relational databases fits into my belief that knowledge graphs have two aspects: the expression SYNTAX and the logic of what is expressed or SEMANTICS. While the LOGIC of a knowledge graph is always the same regardless of technical syntax used to express that logic; there are many, many different technical syntaxes that can be used to represent a knowledge graph. There
Read more

Getting Started with Auditchain Luca

Image
(Note that a newer, production version as opposed to only the development version , of Luca Suite is available) The Innovator's Dilemma points out that disruptive innovations often look like toys that are doing everything wrong. Auditchain Luca , which is part of the Auditchain Suite , is a unique approach to creating a knowledge graph .  To experience using Auditchain Luca, have a look at the Getting Started with Auditchain Luca instructions. Be sure to grab the Excel and JSON import files used for this getting started exercise.   This getting started exercise uses one of several different approaches to getting information into a tool for constructing and viewing professional quality knowledge graphs .  Additional getting started guides will be made available over time. Auditchain Luca might not make sense to you if you don't understand the paradigm shift that is occurring and if you have not shifted your mental map. For the next step in your journey, consider trying creat
Read more

Evaluating the Quality of XBRL-based Financial Reports

Image
From the time public companies started submitting XBRL-based financial reports to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, I have been looking at those reports, trying to understand the XBRL-based reports, and trying to figure out how to get them right.  That information was used to figure out how to create software applications that help professional accountants get these reports right. Here is information that summarizes my testing and results which I stopped doing March 31, 2019: Analysis of the high level accounting relationships in the 10-Ks of about 5,716 financial reports  (5,063 public companies, about 89.1% got all these high level accounting relationships consistent with expectation, 623 were inconsistent and manual confirmation revealed the inconsistency was an error) Documentation that helps you understand 26 different types of errors in XBRL-based reports High quality documentation of hundreds of errors in XBRL-based reports submitted by public companies to the SEC Doc
Read more