Rather than taking an approach that questions the very nature of existence of certain human-created objects, Werner Kuhn’s article instead reads like an instruction manual for how to derive ontologies. Of particular use, he breaks down the actual phenomenon that need to be categorized into four useful bites that allow one to derive an ontology. First, one must create different types of objects; second, classes for these types to belong to; third, functions that each type might perform (an attribute); and, finally, algebraic axioms that define what exactly the actions are that a given type of object affords (618). Of course, the difficult part comes from actually trying to map out the linkages between all of these different types in a domain, then ordering them into a hierarchy which eventually should have “complete executable specifications in a functional language of activities and object classes” (628).
Having completed all this, however, one might wonder what the utility of engineering an ontology might be. The author, of course, provide us with an example of the German traffic rules as one example for understanding how setting up a hierarchical ontology might be useful. He arrives at this example because he believes “ontologies should be designed with a focus on human activities in geographical space” (614). This supposition is further supported by an argument that an accurate ontology should support human activity in space. The act of supporting works because an ontology can “capture knowledge about problem solving in the world” (616). While Werner’s interest lies only in knowledge about the world (616) rather solving problems, we might be able to extrapolate how developing an ontology for traffic rules might aid traffic authorities in constructing further rules or a system for adjudication in Germany.
In thinking about this approach to a problem-solving given what we’ve discussed in class so far, Werner’s recipe for how to construct an ontology appears to be closely akin to Agent Based Modeling. In effect, he believes in taking “types” which could, in some cases, be “agents,” and then figuring out their actions and the hierarchy of how these actions relate to each other. However, his method for constructing an ontology places no emphasis on the individual roles of agents (or types) as does ABM, but instead is more interested in each “type” for its own sake – and for where it sits in a network. In some ways, this reminds me more of a network analysis. Yet I can see how this approach lends itself to something like computer programming that already derives from and creates its own ontologies, and could be greatly aided by engineering a specific existence.
–ClimateNYC