Talk:Conceptualization (information science)

Combining pages

The article Conceptualization has been combined with this article, and Conceptualization is now a redirect to this article. Brews ohare (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of figure

Flow chart showing relation between a conceptualization and its various ontologies in information science. This figure has similarities with Figure 1 in Guarino and to Slide 7 in the talk by van Harmelen. These sources are among the references to this article. The figure is imported from Citizendium.

In this edit Snowded removed the figure at the right with the comment Original research deleted. The view that this figure constitutes 'original research' is untrue. It parallels exactly the text deleted by Snowded and supported by Gruber. See next item on this Talk page.

This figure is exactly parallel to the text, and the text is not 'original research'. In the text it is pointed out that a conceptualization is an extraction from the world and leads via a specialization of language to one or more ontologies, and in each ontology a subset of items and relations is that ontology's 'ontological commitment'.

The figure is a hybrid of two separate figures that appear in two of the references for the article.[1], [2] If there is any specific objection to the figure that might be 'original research' it would be helpful to have these features identified explicitly.

I have itemized the original sources for the drawing in a footnote within its caption and reinstated the figure. Brews ohare (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

the figure is not particularly helpful and as you admit is a synthesis of other material. This was very clear in my edit summary and I am only repeating it heresy as you seem unable to realise that the edit summary is sufficient explanation. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The helpfulness of the figure is not something you can establish by your personal opinon. Obviously the cited sources and myself think a figure is useful. Your notion appears to be that any original figure is OR regardless of its content, which is not a WP policy and is not consistent with the idea of OR. The figure would be OR if it were not consistent with the sourced text, but it is. So, if you have particular complaints about the figure, articulate them. Brews ohare (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither is its usefulness established by your opinion Brews. To repeat you have synthesised two pictures and the it has little utility anyway. If others agree with you then it could be reinstated, but I don't so the prior position stands. Now please STOP this, you have been banned for a month and you are straight back to your old habits of insisting you are right, ignoring edit summary comments and generally exhibiting major [[WP:OWN|ownership issues with any article you work on. You also continually push the boundaries of OR and Synthesis. This has been explained to you by several editors on several articles and on EVERY RfC you have raised. You really should be getting the message by now. I suggest you self-revert as a gesture that you have understood this. If not I will ----Snowded ^TALK 20:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: I have requested specific comment and you refuse. I have supplied this figure as a version of figures found useful by published authors. You have made no attempt to specify your objections beyond your personal opinion about utility. Your blather about my record here in trying to deal with your innumerable objections using this same vague and unjustified obstructionism is no basis for rejecting this figure. Brews ohare (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have made specific comments Brews you just don't agree with them; that happens. Your record I am afraid speaks to the issue of your inability to work with other editors. I'm going to the Opera here in Seattle so you have a few hours to reflect. But it its still there when I come back it gets removed for the reasons I have already stated. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: As long as the figure describes sourced text accurately it is not original research any more than the text it illustrates. That is why I have asked repeatedly, and without response form you, for specific indications of how the figure fails to be an accurate depiction of the text. Can you do that?? Please. Brews ohare (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis is discouraged Brews (as you admitted before you just removed that), and it adds nothing of any value to the text. Now that is a matter of opinion, and your's is no more valid than mine. So if we don't agree and other editors don't engage, then it's not right for you to add it. Its also wrong for you to keep adding it back in after it has been removed before there is agreement here. Oh and the reference is misleading, you created that picture ----Snowded ^TALK 21:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If the question of utility were only between you and I, then its inclusion would be warranted, assuming we have equal votes, because it is well known that some fraction of the population prefers a figure to text. Ostensibly, you belong to one fraction and I to the other. But in fact very similar figures are found in the cited works, suggesting you are outnumbered so far.

And as for my reinsertion of the figure, here I question why your removal of the figure is more privileged than my initial introduction of the figure when writing this article. You have made zero objection to the figure based upon its felicity to the (sourced) text. Brews ohare (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD and also WP:SYNTH both of which apply. If an edit is disputed it does not stand until there is consensus. I'd also say that its not particularily attractive, distorts the opening paragraph and provides a restricted view of a complex issue. Basically you need to learn that you can't just decide you are right when there is a disagreement and that wikipedia defaults to prior text if there is a disagreement ----Snowded ^TALK 22:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Inasmuch as I am entirely responsible for all versions of this article before your appearance here, I'd say the 'original' version has the figure. As for your artistic evaluation - well chacun son goût. Brews ohare (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You are adding material to Wikipedia Brews. Read WP:OWN. I am deleting it, you do not have agreement to its inclusion ----Snowded ^TALK 05:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not have agreement with whom, exactly? I wrote this article, you have critiqued it - there isn't anybody else. No reason to think your own opinion trumps my own, nor to imagine some outside parties have had something to say. You could of course try to pitch in and help make the article better. Brews ohare (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

{od}In the absence of other editors it is just me. I am not sure of the utility of the article, but it is "mostly harmless" so I am confining myself to ensuring it does not become a personal essay, with your own personal illustrations. My opinion does not trump yours, but for the inclusion of material you do need to have consensus, you don't. I am doing my best to let you develop content, but it would be a lot easier if you avoided synthesis, using single references to assert a position etc. etc. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Flow chart showing relation between a conceptualization and its various ontologies in information science. This figure has similarities with Figure 1 in Guarino and to Slide 7 in the talk by van Harmelen.

So now, Snowded, your goal is to help me create a better article. Such help could evolve from specific suggestions, for example, in what way the figure is inaccurate. I've asked for this kind of help several times already, but it is not forthcoming. Instead, you have summarily deleted it based upon your own view that it is "not particularly attractive, distorts the opening paragraph and provides a restricted view of a complex issue". The issue of attractiveness is a non-starter. The question of distortion of the text could be serious, but no distortion has been identified, and in fact, there is none. The issue of a 'restricted' view can be taken various ways without any specifics. I'd say the figure illustrates the connection between the terms 'conceptualization', 'ontology' and 'ontological commitment'. Of course these terms do not exhaust the subject of ontology matching, but that is not the intention.

Also, the figure parallels those cited in its caption, so it is not as though it sprang out of nowhere. The 'world', the 'conceptualization' and the 'ontology' tree is topologically exactly that of van Harmelen The interior ovals representing 'ontological commitment' are exactly what is described in the footnotes defining ontological commitment referring to Gibson and to Ceccaroni & Ribiere.

If your goal is to be helpful, then you might consider actually pointing out what you object to in terms of specific recommendations rather than vague generalities which have no apparent relevance without details. Brews ohare (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

All of the above is further evidence that you are creating a synthesis Brews. One of your sources is a slide set, not normally considered reliable but if it was it distinguishes between concept and agreement on conceptualisation. You can't go from that to the use of conceptualisation on your other source which also makes a key distinction between models and intended models. One source shows commitment as a direction you use it as an overriding description of different ontologies. Its all your interpretation. It's not helpful ----Snowded ^TALK 14:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded; If you read the sources and looked carefully at the figure you would see that it is a completely accurate picture of the relations between the terms identified in the figure. This figure is not the same as the two related figures; it just uses some of the same elements. Guarino's figure is not clearly reproduced on line, but if you look closely at his Figure 1 you will see a poorly reproduced oval called 'ontology' interior to the oval for 'models'. The oval interior to that oval, labeled "intended models" by Guarino, is pointed out by him to reflect ontological commitment. They are a subset. There is no need to dispute vocabulary as the definitions of Gibson and Ceccaroni & Ribiere are clearly demonstrated in the new WP figure. If you actually think there are real discrepancies between the indicated terms in the figure and their use in the text, point them out, please. Brews ohare (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you have one source only (a weakness with the whole article) and you are attempting to summarise that in a form that the author of the article did not think appropriate, then combine it with an illustration from a powerpoint slide set? This is not the place for you to write essays or create your own abstractions. Its all your interpretation. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: The WP figure is a representation of the text, and how well or how poorly it corresponds to the figures of Guarino and van Harmelen is not an issue. The WP figure accurately represents the text, as I guess you agree having never proposed any discrepancy. That is all it is supposed to do. Where your idea comes from that there is only one source, I don't know. There are 10 sources cited. Brews ohare (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:OR: " Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". The provided figure satisfies this requirement. Brews ohare (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You only have one source for the picture that counts, a slide set does not. Otherwise the bulk of the article has limited sourcing - hence some of my changes. That is OK for an article that is in the early stages of creation by the way but it means we have to be careful. Now you are shifting your grounds from saying it put two diagrams together to providing a summary of various texts. That just makes it worse in terms of both OR and Synthesis. You have had running problems on this issue over multiple articles and with several editors. We represent what the sources say, we do not synthesis or interpret those sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded, I do not wish to offend you, but there is a misconception in your approach to this figure. The WP figure stands or falls upon its accuracy in representing the text, in this case, the relation between the terms 'conceptualization', 'ontology', and 'ontological commitment'. Although the two published figures did suggest to me the form of this WP figure, that is immaterial. If I had come up with this figure completely from my own imagination, that would be fine. According to WP:OR even if nothing like this figure exists anywhere else, it is acceptable on WP. The pertinent question is only this: Does the figure convey correctly the vocabulary it is intended to illustrate? Brews ohare (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Reinstatement of reference to Gruber.

In this edit and this edit Snowded removed the following text and source:

An explicit specification of a conceptualization is an ontology, and it may occur that a conceptualization can be realized by several distinct ontologies.[1] A conceptualization is language abstract, while an ontology is language specific.

[1]Gruber, Thomas R. (1993). "A translation approach to portable ontology specifications" (PDF). Knowledge Acquisition. 5 (2): 199–220. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

The reason give was that reference only supports the first phrase as far as I can see. That reason would suggest questioning the last sentence, not removal of the first sentence and its support. The second sentence is a modification of one in another source. It can be argued about elsewhere. Brews ohare (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Source for deleted sentence

In this edit, rather than request a source, Snowded removed the statement:

A conceptualization is language abstract, while an ontology is language specific.

I have replaced this statement with a direct quote from Guarino:

"An ontology is language-dependent, while a conceptualization is language-independent."

The original sentence makes more sense to the reader because it is ambiguous to claim that a conceptualization is language independent: after all, the purpose of the conceptualization is to discuss its ontologies, which obviously requires some form of language. Guarion is using 'language' to mean a very specific formal language. and not a more general form of language.

This is simply an example where insistence upon a verbatim sourced quote is less successful than a paraphrase that fits the meaning better, but unfortunately can be wikilawyered. Brews ohare (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've inserted two quotes of wording from Guarino that may get the idea across without a paraphrase. Brews ohare (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The sequence makes a difference Brews so lets keep with the sources shall we----Snowded ^TALK 04:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears the sequence of the quotes from Guarino is unchanged. Brews ohare (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Pertinence of translation to ontology comparisons

In this edit Snowded removed a discussion of translation between languages as an example of the difficulties in comparing ontologies in information science. That discussion was as follows:

An example of the problems encountered in comparing ontologies is found in translation between human languages. Ostensibly, as all humans live in the same world and have the same physical senses with which to see the world, one might expect to correlate human activity with language and thereby make rules for translation. However, that view is utopian because humans act upon cultural interpretation of their surroundings, and relating two cultures is an entirely different matter than understanding what term in both represents a 'rabbit'.[1],[2] Some suggest that humans think in 'mentalese', but so far we don't have access to this level of conceptualization.[3]

[1] Willard v. O. Quine (2013). Word and Object (PDF) (New ed.). MIT Press. ISBN 9780262518314. Quine raised the issue of translation and 'holophrastic' indeterminacy of translation in a series of books and papers. He famously introduced the example of interpreting the word 'gavagai' in a hypothetical language where it might mean 'rabbit', but had to be distinguished from various other things related to a rabbit.

[2] Crispin Wright (1999). "Chapter 16: The indeterminacy of translation". In Bob Hale, Crispin Wright, eds (ed.). A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 397. ISBN 0631213260. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) "Quine's contention that translation is indeterminate has been among the most widely discussed and controversial theses in modern analytical philosophy."

[3] Murat Aydede (September 17, 2010). Edward N. Zalta, ed (ed.). "The language of thought hypothesis". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition). {{cite web}}: |editor= has generic name (help)

The pertinence of translation to comparison of ontologies is unarguable in the realm of philosophy, and is the subject of many WP articles. The main difference between that discussion and the corresponding discussion in information systems is that the ontologies involved in language comparisons are more complex and less explicitly defined than those involved in information systems. Nonetheless, the problems involved are similar, as discussed by Gruber in his work "A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specification" and more generally by Smith who compares philosophy and information science.

If there are specific questions about this example, it would be helpful to have them articulated. Brews ohare (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of a figure in the article Conceptualization (information science)

A figure is proposed to illustrate the relation between several terms used in the discussion of Conceptualization (information science). Comments are solicited as to whether it should be included in the article as it is, or whether modifications should be made. Brews ohare (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Flow chart showing relation between a 'conceptualization', its various 'ontologies', and its 'ontological commitment' in information science.

The figure is shown to the right. The question is whether the figure helps to understand the text for those readers who have a visual orientation in assimilating information, and whether some modification would improve its clarity.

The terms 'conceptualization' and 'ontology' are described in the introduction. The term 'ontological commitment' is defined in two footnotes to the second subsection.

The elements of the figure have similarities with Figure 1 in Guarino and to Slide 7 in the talk by van Harmelen. However, the figure is a representation of the usage of terms defined in the text of the WP article. How its genesis was inspired by the figures of Guarino and van Harmelen is not the issue.

Comments

• This RfC is a result of an impasse between Snowded and myself described in this section of the Talk page. Snowded has raised the issue of OR. According to WP:OR: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments"

Discussion of this figure therefore is not about WP:OR, nor about hypothetical conjectures upon the circumstances of its birth, but is to be based upon (i) its utility, and (ii) its fidelity to the text. Brews ohare (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• See arguments above (OR and/or Synthesis by the way). Brews started off by saying he had put together two images, one from an article one from a powerpoint slide set! Then he moved his grounds to say it was a representation of the text. In other words his interpretation of the text in a form which actually contradicts one of his original sources. The diagram by the way despite its claimed origins was created by Brews. This has also been raised by Brews here at the NOR notice board and the only other editor involved has also expressed concerns at attempting to summarise text.----Snowded ^TALK 16:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This comment addresses neither (i) utility, nor (ii) fidelity of the diagram. Any 'contradiction' has not been identified. Brews ohare (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:OR even if nothing like this figure exists anywhere else, it is acceptable on WP. The pertinent question is only this: Does the figure convey correctly the vocabulary it is intended to illustrate? Brews ohare (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

A diagram is not exempt from normal sourcing rules Brews, and this one of yours is synthesis per my various comments above ----Snowded ^TALK 14:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)