ArticleRead (19):GEON: Making sense of the myriad resources, researchers and concepts that comprise a geoscience cyberinfrastructure

GEON: Making sense of the myriad resources, researchers and concepts that comprise a geoscience cyberinfrastructure, By Mark Gahegan, Junyan Luo, Stephen D. Weaver, William Pike, Tawan Banchuen, in Computers & Geosciences, Vol. 35, Issue 4, 836-854, (Apr. 2009)

There are two main considerations for exploring the geoscientific meaning of e-resources: the top-down defined domain ontology and conventional metadata, and the bottom-up emergent meaning carried in how the resource are used by users (epistemology: which can be captured in workflows, in provenance meta-data and even in the interactions between people.).

The primary argument of this article is that whether ontological or epistemological, no single one of these web threads is sufficient to carry the essence of meaning. A review of ontology base on this article is made in a SWOT analysis in the figure below, where current engineering methods are considered along with those of the data integration (the Strength table).

Using a case study of a knowledge portal GEON to illustrate their main arguments, problems of accessing to e-resources are:

(1) large resource
(2) dynamic nature of catalogs
(3) varieties of search strategies of user needs
(4) meanings of resource

Suggested solutions to these difficulties include:

(1)adopting a visualize-on-demand strategy, and visualizing multiple perspectives which highlight connections or overlaps among the e-resources,
(2) classifying resources into 4 categories and 18 subcategories, and translating resource descriptions into RDF triples.

Problems (3) and (4) are tackled together by augmenting ontologies. The authors augment ontologies by adding situational knowledge initiated from:

(i) meaning resides in a nexus of interactions (Whitehead, 1929-1997), thus a knowledge nexus can support multiple strands of meaning.

(ii) semiotics that according to different subject of interest, nodes can change their semiotic role in the nexus (Sowa, 1999-2002).

In short, the authors add use-cases, provenance data, social networks and workflows, to ontology, through the use of Perspectives(global and local), as a pragmatic aspect to understand meaning and definition of e-resource. In particular, perspective filters, defined against an OWL model, facilitate examination of a subset of connections within a complex concept space in a manner that suits thematic exploration.

p.s. GEON is an open collaborative project started in 2002 funded under the NSF Information Technology Research (ITR) program . The aim is to develop CyberInfrastructure, a vision in the U.S. while e-Science is in the Europe, that the need of a comprehensive infrastructure to capitalize on dramatic advances in information technology in support of data sharing and integration.

ArticleRead (8) :Information as sign: semiotics and information science

Information as sign: semiotics and information science, By Douglas Raber & John M. Budd, Journal of Documentation, 2003, 59, 5, pp.507-522

By the definition of Linguistic Sign from Fernand de Saussure (1959), Raber and Budd (2003) try to define information in two parts as “Text” and “Content” in parallel with Saussure’s sign (Signifier and Signified). Table 1 shows how Raber and Budd taking information as Saussure’s linguistic Sign. Table 2 illustrates why semiotics can be applied in information science.

Table 1: Information as Saussure’s Sign

Table 2: Information Science and Semiotics

Note: This review was mainly completed as a homework while taking the Humanity Informatics Class lectured by Professor Ching-Chun Hsieh in Jan. 2007.

ArticleRead (4) : Collaborative Tagging and Semiotic Dynamics

Collaborative Tagging and Semiotic Dynamics, By C Cattuto, V Loreto, L Pietronero ,Arxiv preprint cs.CY/0605015, 2006
From the Cover: Semiotic dynamics and collaborative tagging, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2007 - National Acad Sciences

In “Collaborative Tagging and Semiotic Dynamics”, Cattuto, Loreto and Pietronero set down what a user pattern looks like in a social tagging system through empirical statistic analysis of tag co-occurrence. The Yule-Simon model on probability and statistics basis has been used to investigate the long-term memory of users’ tag-vocabulary activities in one of the social tagging system, del.icio.us. A semiotic conceptual model for the tri-partite graph to structure a post as (user, resource,{tag}) is proposed. Therefore, the tri-partite concept which is original from semiotic dynamic literatures is illustrated in the tile as a highlight.

In order to overcome the need for complexity of experimental data, this analysis procedure employs a tag-centric construction view on del.icio.us system. By factoring out two parameters of (users, resource) and adding the set of time parameter from the post, the results of co-occurrence of tagging activities are shown to be consistent with available theoretical calculations in Power Law and Zipf’s Law. Typical applications of utilizing these two statistical theories are well recognized in phenomenon analysis such as in natural language; self-organization and human activity; access patterns; as well as memory–kernel of cognitive psychology. This joint experiment with the well-proved theories offers an alternative method to explore social tagging phenomenon, and for our review to add value on their ideas and research attentions on user behaviors and semiotic concept.

Controversially, however, the research method is likely to be criticized from the semiotic point of views.

First of all, the confusion of two semiotic schools is presented. The authors intend and develop the tri-partite graph from semiotic dynamic concept which follows Charles Sanders Peirce’s (1839-1914) sign theory remarkably in its basic triadic relation within a sign, namely (Represent, Object, Interpretant). The authors have attempted to adopt this triadic elements and rephrase them from (forms {words}, referents {objects}, meanings {categories}) of Steels and Kaplan (1999) to (user, resource,{tag}) in social tagging concept.

However, the authors’ reference of semiotic dynamic is the work of Ke et.al (2002) who adopts the Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913) school of semiotics which takes a sign being constructed within a dual relation (signifier, signified). Since these two semiotic schools have been in debates for decades, the authors adopting these two papers as their definition for semiotic dynamic may lead to confusion in general.

Picture 1: Steels and Kaplan (1999)'s Semiotic Dynamic

Secondly, their proposal for the tag-centric calculation method contradicts their own arguments favoring semantic context. In such context, semantic meaning is supossed to deal with the same Object (the same resource / bookmark in this research) to investigate the relation between different users and users' tags on their co-occurrence. Picture 1 shows the original method for the co-occurrence of items for their semantic meaning in Steels and Kaplan (1999) ‘s semiotic dynamic which the authors have cited from. Picture 2 shows the authors' method for calculating the co-occurrence of tags. Different objects (resources /bookmarks refering to) and different users(interpreters) are ignored in this case. The main focus is on the different tags’ relations, namely frequency and co-occurrence especially in low-high rank tags. Note that our review is not to argue that the authors’ work cannot result in user’s activity patterns since the Power Law and Zipf’s law have been well-proved in such domain. To be specific, if the authors’ work is not in the semiotic dynamic domain, the contradiction may not be this tremendous.



Picture 2: the authors' semiotic dynamic?

ArticleRead (3): A Definition of Information

A Definition of Information , By A.D. Madden, Aslib Proceedings vol. 52, No.9, p.343-, 2000.10.

In his article A.D. Madden has drawn some attention to the interpretation of information in the aspect of context.

After reviewing literatures defining information: as a representation of knowledge; as data in the environment; as part of the communication process; as a resource or commodity, the author has an attempt to further defining “information” in a perspective of “informing contexts”.

Three major elements in his Information-in-Context Model are defined as: “authorial context” which is a message being originated, “readership context” which is a message being received and interpreted, as well as “the message” which is the information being transmitted.

The idea of taking information reception and interpretation within personal and community paradigms in social-cultural contexts is valuable for most understating of the definition of information. However, the author rephrases the definition of information for the context-reliant model of information reception in the conclusion without clear explanation about “stimulus”, “system” and “system relationship” . The rephrases of the definition makes the information more blur in the end.

The general idea of Madden’s definition of information can be summarized as the figure shown.

Note: This review was mainly completed as a homework while taking the Humanity Informatics Class lectured by Professor Ching-Chun Hsieh in December 2006.

ArticleRead (2): Semiotics and Programming Languages

“Semiotics and Programming Languages” By H. Zemanek,, In Communications of the ACM, vol. 9, no. 3, Mar. 1966, pp. 139-143.

Almost, a half-decade ago, in the 1965 ACM Programming Languages and Pragmatics Conference, we have Heinz Zemanek’s one article highlighting the issue of semiotics particularly in the pragmatic aspect as a relation between programming languages (PL) and their application fields.

Taking sign theory of the logic schools from two Charles: C.S. Peirce and C.W. Morris, Zemanek has adopted semiotic concepts and terminologies to programming languages, i.e. syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.

According to Morris’s pragmatic definition, which is different from Peirce, – the study of the relation of signs to interpreters, Zemanek argues: “There is always pragmatics because there is always an observer and because no language makes sense without interpretation.” The justification of pragmatics has been made by the existence of interpreters, interpretation and their relations to the PL.

Two types of pragmatics have been further identified as: “the mechanical pragmatics” and “the human pragmatics” since the principle of PL from Zemanek’s definition is the communication of programs between computers, from man to computers, from man to man, as well as from man to himself.

One issue concerning Zemanek’s prediction about “the central application of pragmatics around the computer” that deserves to be stressed is to make it possible for computer to “speak more and more and to restrict the human user in the practical situation to point at YES or NO, or some more equally simple choices, while the computer talks.” The interest in the study of how semiotics advance the computer and programming languages to reach this goal reveals a compelling vision to be crafted further on.

Outline:

ArticleRead (1): The pragmatic web: a manifesto

The pragmatic web: a manifesto, By Mareike Schoop, Aldo de Moor, and Jan L.G. Dietz, Communications of the ACM, May 2006 Vol.49, No.5

This article is composed of 7 paragraphs. From a context driven perspective, the authors support some preliminary thoughts of Pragmatic Web of Munindar Singh (2002). A similar sense of pragmatics in essential issues of context-based, community as well as collaboration structure has advanced two International Conferences on the Pragmatic Web with this Manifesto in 2006 and 2007, and is supposed to be further advanced at the 3rd Conference in Uppsala, Sweden, 2008.

In the first place, the article starts with existing Semantic Web problems such as complex format of RDF and ontology, as well as the insufficient context-free assumption which may not satisfy Web functions in communication, consensus building, and cooperatively modifying ontologies. It then shifts towards the crucial challenge of how to build a socio-technical infrastructure to leverage the Web from Semantics to Pragmatics.

In particular, authors are devoted to the concept which ontologies co-evolve with their communities of use, and within conversation between communities in practice. Thus, the aim of Pragmatic Web is to increase human collaboration effectively by proper technologies. Some proposals for the implementation of this Pragmatic Vision has been drawn on, for instance, building systems :
(1) for ontology negotiation
(2) for ontology-based business interaction
(3) for pragmatic ontology building efforts in communities of practice, in other words, for goal-oriented discourses in communities.
This is maybe the strongest part of the article, and it was later then the most cited Pragmatic Vision for scholars of interests.

It is somewhat, however, not clear that the conclusion part brought out a theoretical foundation in the language-action perspective as an analysis approach for the Pragmatic Web. By contrast, Singh (2002) did go back to the original pragmatic scholarship for its foundations of the theory of Signs by Charles Morris. However, it is not possible to do justice to whether the importance of Sign theory (Semiotics) should be or should not be in the Pragmatic Web research agenda in only one sentence or one paragraph. Instead, the pragmatic research should draw attentions to questions such as: how the Semiotic School find a place for the Web Science, and how the Web Science Community re-negotiate and collaborate with the Semiotic communities to work out the definition of Pragmatic Web in practice.