Observations, measurements and semantic reference spaces

What is needed to enable communication about observation and measurement results in information systems? Information system ontologies make a certain conceptualization explicit and partially account for the meanings of symbols associated with this conceptualization. Yet, the meaning of signs denoting measurement results such as “10 m”, “red” or “high” cannot be specified with currently available ontologies. They fail to separate the ontological nature of some observable quality from the specification of how to observe and name the measurement result. We employ the foundational ontology DOLCE for characterizing the ontological nature of observable magnitudes. This involves dealing with ontological questions like “What kinds of observable qualities exist, in which entity does the observed quality inhere and how are the magnitudes of the observed quality structured?”. Then, in order to capture the semantic aspects of an observation result, we introduce semantic reference spaces, which help deal with semantic questions like “Do the signs “10 m”, “33 feet” or “shallow” have the same meaning? Do these signs refer to the same entity, e.g. the depth magnitude of a lake? How to establish a unit of measure?". We posit that the semantic questions can be approached efficiently only if agreement is reached on the ontological questions, and show that the specification of the meaning of signs denoting measurement results is enabled via the extension of the foundational ontology DOLCE with semantic reference spaces. This work was conducted while the author (Probst) was working at the Institute for Geoinformatics, University of Munster, Germany.

[1]  J. Trier Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes : die Geschichte eines Sprachlichen Feldes , 1931 .

[2]  S. S. Stevens Mathematics, measurement, and psychophysics. , 1951 .

[3]  Mark L. Johnson The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning , 1987 .

[4]  Stevan Harnad,et al.  Symbol grounding problem , 1990, Scholarpedia.

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  Foundations of Measurement, Vol. III: Representation, Axiomatization, and Invariance , 1990 .

[6]  N. Chrisman Exploring Geographic Information Systems , 1997 .

[7]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Ontological Analysis of Taxonomic Relationships , 2000, ER.

[8]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Conceptual spaces - the geometry of thought , 2000 .

[9]  Andrew U. Frank,et al.  Tiers of ontology and consistency constraints in geographical information systems , 2001, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[10]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Supporting ontological analysis of taxonomic relationships , 2001, Data Knowl. Eng..

[11]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean , 2002, CACM.

[12]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Sweetening Ontologies with DOLCE , 2002, EKAW.

[13]  Aldo Gangemi,et al.  Understanding the Semantic Web through Descriptions and Situations , 2003, OTM.

[14]  Werner Kuhn,et al.  Semantic reference systems , 2003, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[15]  Luc Schneider,et al.  Designing Foundational Ontologies: The Object-Centered High-Level Reference Ontology OCHRE as a Case Study , 2003, ER.

[16]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  WonderWeb Deliverable D18 Ontology Library , 2003 .

[17]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  An Overview of OntoClean , 2004, Handbook on Ontologies.

[18]  Gerd Wagner,et al.  A Unified Foundational Ontology and some Applications of it in Business Modeling , 2004, CAiSE Workshops.

[19]  Florian Probst,et al.  Spatial Dimensionality as a Classification Criterion for Qualities , 2006, FOIS.