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 (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.