Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with ontology

In, Out, Shake-it-all about... I need a methodology and/or software application (for analyzing differing input, storage and output concepts) that I can hand on a silver-platter to my analysts...

blue_wardrobe — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:40:42 -0800

In, Out, Shake-it-all about... I need a methodology and/or software application (for analyzing differing input, storage and output concepts) that I can hand on a silver-platter to my analysts... I am looking for a scientific / semi-scientific approach to analysis of the following problem:

I have a database of information of incidents relating to medicinal products and their specifications. The inputs to the database come from multiple sources for each incident and for each specification, with different ideas about how to represent certain concepts. The outputs of the database get printed on various reports and forms, whose format is specified by various governments, that also use differing concepts. Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that there are no agreed published mappings between the different concepts. (For examples of clashing concepts, see end.)

Goals:
1) Minimize / simplify data entry from variable quality source data;
2) Minimize duplicative storage;
3) Ease ad hoc analysis;
4) Generate compliant reports and forms;

It seems obvious to me that you have to store a 'super-concept' that is more precise than all of the input and output concepts. But because the input and output concepts could be re-defined at any point in time, the stored super-concept also needs to be able to be re-defined more precisely at any point in time. And we need mappings from the input and output concepts to the super-concept that can be tracked over time. But is there a standardized or at least well-accepted approach to analysis of this problem, or to the problem itself? I would like to hand my analysts the right approach 'ready-baked', or show them systems that tackle this problem effectively. Today, their analysis is too simplistic (a field for every concept even if it is duplicative), or inconsistent (some concepts insufficiently represented). Result: upset users.

Bottom line... What methodology can I point them to? Preferably something that exists and is presented in a straightforward manner. Is there existing software to manage the analysis?

Bonus points... Since this field cannot be unique to this industry, are there good examples of systems that already effectively use input to storage to output mappings and make them obvious to the user and auditor alike?

===============

Examples of concept clashes:
DRUG COLOR: the US government might have a list of ten named colors; the UK government might have a list of thirty colors; another government might use RGB values; any of these lists may change at any time;

PATIENT AGE: classically you use number/unit combinations, such as 43 years, 2 months or 3 weeks, etc. But you might receive or have to output a category (defined differently by different governments), such as 'Adult', 'Neonate', 'Pubescent', etc. There are overlapping concepts such as 'Senior Citizen' which might differ in age range by jurisdiction and sex.

PRODUCT CATEGORY: In the US, ‘vaccines’ are in a regulatory category all their own, whereas in the EU, ‘vaccines’ are a sub-category of ‘drug’ products. There are known products which are classified as a 'drug' in one jurisdiction, and as a 'device' in others - sometimes arbitrarily. The product category tends to drive which version of a concept one needs for all the other variables.

HOSPITALIZATION NEEDED / EXTENDED: This is one checkbox on some reports and forms which we receive or send, and two on others. It depends on the form or report. No other real logic applies. Just governments being arbitrary.

LABELED USE / OFF-LABEL USE: If a drug product is used as stated on the label, then it's 'Labeled Use'. If not, then it's 'Off-Label Use'. But for vaccines, an additional, overlapping concept is whether the vaccination was given as part of the recommended ‘primary’ course (in other words in the appropriate number, separated appropriately by time, and within the appropriate patient age range for each administration). This is called 'Primary Use'. But there is no accepted term for non-'Primary Use' - the box 'Primary Use' is simply left unchecked. non-'Primary Use' equates to 'Off-Label Use' in the US, but elsewhere they are separate but analogous concepts.

DEVICE TYPE: has a list which is specified in the US by the regulatory guidance as ‘any term you like that is not too generic’ (I love regulatory guidance). Elsewhere the list is defined as a few broad names that today is a subset of the US list, but might not stay that way.

Many, many others.

Please point me to a schema for describing accessibility features of a physical location

bleary — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:48:06 -0800

Is there a description language for defining accessibility features of a location? I stumbled upon Talking Points in a news article and have been following them with interest. They are creating mobile app prototypes for orientating blind users around cities, buildings, and other points of interest.

In the interest of helping, I would like to help vet or create a markup language to help tag locations. I've heard of kml and gpx, found http://www.opengeospatial.org/ and am quiet out of my element.

Using "accessibility" as a keyword usually turns up web authoring stuff, but not a location description language geared towards describing accessibility features of a point of interest.

Given something like that, you could have a mobile app that knows where you are, or knows where you are going, and can tell you the height of the counters, whether someone speaks ASL, ... other stuff?

Point me in a good direction. Thanks!

The phenomenology of text

0bvious — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 07:21:33 -0800

The phenomenology / ontology of text: has anyone examined this issue directly in philosophical, literary and/or critical terms? I am interested in the experience and perception of text, both within readership and on an abstract (more holistic level perhaps) as the archetypical mediator and virtual-archive of human culture. I wish to explore it via its mediums (e.g. book, computer screen), its modes (e.g. semiotics, translation) and its means (e.g. poetry, fiction, encryption).

I came at this problem through Heidegger (most specifically in his re-appropriation of the term 'techné'), looking at text as a technology.

I have since come upon the writings of D.C. Greetham and a couple of other bits and pieces.

I feel that this is an area not much covered by the critical fields, especially in these times of ever encompassing digital/web-based mediums. I'm interested in following through some of this to a PhD proposal.

What paths should I be taking?

Your help, as always, is much appreciated.

What are 1s and 0s?

Eiwalker — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:29:36 -0800

What are the 1s and 0s of computers? I.e., in what sense is it true (and in what sense is it false) to say that there are 1s and 0s in computers? Computer science is not fundamental physics, it's a macro science; otherwise 1s and 0s would (absurdly) be taken as fundamental physical entities (imagine that there are quarks, fermions, 1s, 0s, etc. at the base level). Rather, computer scientists talk about things like neurons, nodes, tape, each of which is composed of smaller parts, and, similarly, processes such as writing and erasing, each requiring many parts. But in the case of, say, a neuron, we can look at it in a microscope, dissect it, figure out what it's made out of. Whereas I'd like to know whether such is possible with regards to 1s and 0s; if not, why not?

I distinguish between numerals and numbers. In my terminology, numerals are physical but arbitrary, whereas numbers are non-physical but don't ultimately exist. Presumably, the sense in which there are 1s and 0s in computers is a sense in which there are numerals--though I suppose they don't really look like 2D "1"s or "0"s; I suspect their geometries are different. What are their geometries really like?

Oh the places we'll go.

oddman — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 06:19:37 -0800

I need help putting together reading material for a philosophy course. I will be teaching an Intro to Philosophy course at my university this fall. I've decided to introduce philosophy to my students by way of some of the fields more interesting and famous problems.

More specifically I want to cover:
The problem of evil and arguments for the existence of God.
The mind-body problem.
Identity.
Skepticism and responses.
Basic ontology.
The problem of knowledge (i.e. what does it mean to know X).

I've also decided to eschew requiring the purchase of particular books in favor of having them read articles and excerpts provided by me in PDF form.

So here is my question: Can you suggest any specific articles or passages (I don't mind difficult material) that you feel do a good job of addressing any of the topics mentioned above?

I'll give you two examples.
For the skepticism section I think I'll have them read Descartes's first meditation, "A Defence of Common Sense" by Moore, and perhaps a passage by Hume.

For the problem of knowledge section I think I'll have them read Plato's "Meno," Gettier's "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge," and Searle's "Minds, Brains and Programs."

How do I organise my college course modules into one cohesive format?

ajp — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:29:05 -0800

How do I organise my college course modules into one cohesive format? Help! I'm drowning in college coursework. How do I organise my course modules into one cohesive format that I can easily update, expand, and use for revision?

There are some highly specific details in this question, but it's essentially a problem of organising related but distinct information into one cross-referenced and definitive source.

I'm currently studying osteopathy, and have a huge amount of anatomical information to learn. The course is split over several modules which are roughly:

1. Structural and functional anatomy (lists of bones, muscles, joints, etc. and how they work together).

2. Dysfunction (problems that arise, currently specifically in the musculo-skeletal system, although cardio-vascular systems and other organs of the body will also be included).

3. Technique (how to detect and treat problems using manual therapy).

The fundamental problem I have is that the course is structured in such a way that I find it very hard to relate these subject areas to each other. The modules are taught separately, and although there has been a clear attempt by the faculty to integrate the subject matter, I simply don't find it cohesive enough. A "perfect" lecture for me would be one whole day studying one anatomical feature. For example, starting with anatomy of the foot, moving onto its dysfunctions, and culminating in diagnostic and treatment techniques. Timetable restrictions prevent this. We may study the anatomy of the foot one morning, but learn technique for treating the back in the afternoon. Our study notes reflect this fractured approach: we may learn about the thigh while we're in college, but be expected to "read ahead" about the bones of the pelvis concurrently.

Revision is similarly tricky. If we want to revise all techniques, that's fine. But if we want to revise "the back", and include all three modules, we have to collate notes from multiple sources. This is time-consuming, and potentially leaves us open to accidentally missing information that is buried deep in one module. I'd like to organise revision (and the notes themselves) arbitrarily, not just by module. For example, it may make sense to revise "the foot", or "muscle attachements", or "nerve supplies".

How do I organise this fractured information into one cohesive, cross-referenced format?

Pointers on where to start looking, rather than definitive solutions, will be gratefully accepted. Googling has revealed plenty of well-organised and detailed information, but I'm not looking for yet more information on the subject matter.

I'm going to start by checking out mind-mapping, so if anyone has experience of learning anatomical or medical information using mind-maps, it would be very useful. The info I need to capture from my course is a combination of detailed text, bullet-point facts, and images. Mind-maps seem good for this; any words of wisdom? I'm not entirely convinced that they will handle the cross-referencing aspect very well: I'd have to settle on a means of organising the course material - probably by anatomical feature - then maybe have standard branches from each subject, maybe one for each module. Somehow that doesn't seem "good enough" to me! I've also just found GraphViz.org which looks interesting.

Bonus points: Whatever solution I settle on, I'd ideally like to put it online in some collaborative format, so my fellow students and I can combine forces to create a definitive coursework model. I have access to a Linux web-server with Dreamhost, but of course I only have user-privileges, not admin. PHP apps will probably be fine, maybe Java. Can anyone recommend appropriate software? (I am going to ask the college faculty if they'd outline all modules as mind-maps, maybe even the entire course, but I won't hold my breath).

Apologies for the length of this question :-)

What kind of thing is a note?

Deathalicious — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:29:20 -0800

Ontology Filter: Give me a name for a category of things that I'm using in a system. Basically, I have a system with the following objects: Notes, Tasks, Groupings. As of yet, I'm having a hard time thinking up a category that all of these (and things like them) could fit into. I'm not sure if it's possible, but I figured I'd give it a shot.

Here are shared properties of these "things":

They are all "attached" to a concrete Person, Place, or Thing (for example, there might be three Notes about the Person John Smith: "He is 30" "His order for 5 eggplants was processed on July 12, 2006" "Do not get him angry")
They operate independently from the object they are attached to (Tasks themselves behave the same whether they are associated a Person or a Place)
They all contain, in some form or another, the following three facts: the concrete object they are attached to, a date/time, and some freetext that explains the relevance of the "thing" itself. For a task it would be the name of the task, for a note it would be the note contents, and for the grouping it would be the grouping's label (i.e. "Places and People that Suzy Likes").

So a legal "thing" under this category could be a task, assigned to Captain Planet on March 16, 1992, labelled "Get rid of toxic sludge." A non-legal thing would be a blank note attached to Albert Einstein dated March 14, 1879. Another non-legal thing would be a Birth Certificate which, although tied to a Person and having a date and descriptor, would only work with People (i.e. some of the fields entered into the Birth Certificate relates directly to being attached to a Person as opposed to any kind of object).

The best my boss and I have come up with is RelationalAttachment. Any better ideas?

I tried to post this anonymously so that I could keep who was developing the system (me) a secret but it hasn't been approved yet. I'm going ahead and posting it with my name attached and hope it doesn't get ripped down.

Are the terms ontology, taxonomy, and folksonomy interchangeable?

nramsey — Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:39:51 -0800

Are the terms ontology, taxonomy, and folksonomy interchangeable? I started a new job and had a first meeting on Friday with some other departments. My position is as a writer, but I have to work with the Web people and have input into the "architecture" if you will. That being said, are the terms ontology, taxonomy, and folksonomy interchangeable? I know they talk about the same realm of stuff, but I didn't think they were the same thing. The terms were used in regards to a redesign and restructuring of a huge site.

What is ontology?

carter — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:40:24 -0800

Philosophy 101: What is 'ontology'? For a while now I've been using the word ontology to mean an unspoken and taken-for-granted theory of the world. I've used it as a kind of opposite to epistemology, and congruent with the distinction (in my mind at least) between tacit and explicit. Last year I was mugged by some philosophers who said that I just could not do that. Am I right? Am I wrong? Useful resources? Help! I personally either think about ontology in the more formal Information Science sense of information ontologies, or in the looser sense of an everyday theory of the world (e.g. Wittgenstein's language-games and 'forms of life'). These philosophers threw a bunch of Plato at me, which seemed to be a third way to think about ontology; but the way they explained it completely baffled me. Are there any good resources out there (print, web) that lay out the Platonic view at a 'dummies' level. and hopefully relate it to these other views? Am I correct in my own definitions of ontology? What resources have you found useful to understand this concept?