 |
Towards a Semantic Web for CultureMaastricht McLuhan Institute, PO Box 616, Maastricht MD 6200, The Netherlands Email: k.veltman@mmi.unimaas.nl Key features: Figures 1-35 This is a summary version of the paper. The author's authoritative full-text is available as PDF (87 pages, 756 kb). Download latest PDF viewer 
AbstractToday's semantic Web deals with meaning in a very restricted sense and offers static solutions. This is adequate for many scientific, technical purposes and for business transactions requiring machine-to-machine communication, but does not answer the needs of culture. Science, technology and business are concerned primarily with the latest findings, the state of the art, i.e. the paradigm or dominant world-view of the day. In this context, history is considered non-essential because it deals with things that are out of date.By contrast, culture faces a much larger challenge, namely, to re-present changes in ways of knowing; changing meanings in different places at a given time (synchronically) and over time (diachronically). Culture is about both objects and the commentaries on them; about a cumulative body of knowledge; about collective memory and heritage. Here, history plays a central role and older does not mean less important or less relevant. Hence, a Leonardo painting that is 400 years old, or a Greek statue that is 2500 years old, typically have richer commentaries and are often more valuable than their contemporary equivalents. In this context, the science of meaning (semantics) is necessarily much more complex than semantic primitives. A semantic Web in the cultural domain must enable us to trace how meaning and knowledge organisation have evolved historically in different cultures. The paper examines five issues to address this challenge:
New ways are proposed of visualizing knowledge using a time/space horizon to distinguish between universals and particulars. It is suggested that new visualization methods make possible a history of questions as well as of answers, thus enabling dynamic access to cultural and historical dimensions of knowledge. Unlike earlier media, which were limited to recording factual dimensions of collective memory, digital media enable us to explore theories, ways of perceiving, ways of knowing; to enter into other mindsets and world-views and thus to attain novel insights and new levels of tolerance. Some practical consequences are outlined. Index of FiguresFigure 1. One of the original block schemas to describe the semantic Web in 1997Figure 2. The semantic Web wedding cake model used to explain the structure of the semantic Web as developed by World Wide Web Consortium Figure 3. Five semantic primitives according to John Sowa (2000) Figure 4. Five issues that need to be integrated into a cultural semantic Web Figure 5. Aristotle's Four Causes Figure 6. Parallels between logical categories, material concept relationships, verbs Figure 7. Aristotle's four categories of being and his ten basic categories (substance and nine accidents) Figure 8. Aristotle's accidents, Dahlberg's basic categories and Perreault's relations Figure 9. Meaning triangle from Mediaeval logic Figure 10. Semiotic triangle in Peirce Figure 11. Triangle of reference in Ogden Figure 12. Triangle of signification in De Saussure Figure 13. Lerat (ISO 1087) Figure 14. Dahlberg's concept triangle Figure 15. Organon model from Karl Bühler Figure 16. Two basic relations introduced from classical logic Figure 17. Categories relating to exclusion and intersection Figure 18. A first and second level of material function or syntax relations Figure 19. Dahlberg's four kinds of definition that stem from different material relations, and correspond also to basic logical categories (or semantic primitives) Figure 20. Dahlberg's headings, Perreault's basic relators and subheadings Figure 21. Perreault's Subsumptive Relations with respect to Universals and Particulars Figure 22. Universals and Particulars in light of Perreault's Relations Figure 23. Semantics and related sciences in the early 20th century Figure 24. Basic semiotic trends in Europe (1920s -1930s) according to Roland Posner Figure 25. The wedding cake's URI vis à vis universals and particulars Figure 26. Main elements of an initial Distributed European Electronic Resource (DEER), which offers a model for a future World Distributed Electronic repository (WONDER) The following figures are found in the appendices Figure 27. Three (Language) Arts (Trivium) and Four (Mathematical) "Sciences" (Quadrivum) comprising the Seven Liberal Arts Figure 28. The tree of Porphyry: a, in the version of Peter of Spain (1239); b, in a fresco of the library at Schussenried, near Ulm, Germany. Sowa has called Porphyry's tree the first semantic Web Figure 29. The three parts of Vincent of Beauvais' Speculum Maius and the apocryphal fourth part Figure 30. Aristotle's four categories of being and basic disciplines of knowledge Figure 31. Basic categories of the Strunz Classification of Minerals Figure 32. Ancient authors and key moments in publication of new species after 1500 Figure 33. Levels in Linnaeus' classification of humans Figure 34. View of the five kingdoms of life according to Benjamin Cummings Figure 35. View of the six kingdoms of life according to G. Ramel AcknowledgementsThis paper outlines the needs of an historian of science and culture, who has followed more closely than most humanists, the evolution of the Internet and the World Wide Web over the past three decades. It has benefited from lively discussion with many pioneers of the Web including Douglas Engelbart, Ted Nelson, Leonard Kleinrock, John Postel, Mark Weiser, Larry Masinter, John Gage, Robert Cailliau, Tim Berners Lee, and Ora Lassila. I am grateful to each of them for expanding my understanding of both potentials and limitations of today's Web.The paper is dedicated to Dr Ingetraut Dahlberg whose pioneering work has been an inspiration for the past twenty years. Her deep understanding of the historical dimensions of knowledge organisation deserves far greater attention. I am deeply grateful to her for carefully reading the text and offering valuable corrections and suggestions. I am grateful to my friend, Professor Michael Giesecke, for the stimulation he has provided concerning the role of printing in the re-organisation of knowledge. I thank my colleague and friend, Dr Eric McLuhan, for stimulating my thoughts with respect to Aristotle's causes. I am grateful to my colleague, Johan van der Walle; my doctoral student, Nik Baerten (who also produced figures 18-23) and my former assistant, Alexander Bielowski for kindly reading the text and offering helpful suggestions and criticisms. I am grateful to Suzanne Keene and Francesca Monti for helping define the vision for a DEER. I thank Vasily and Alexander Churanov for helping with SUMS prototypes. I thank Traugott Koch and the four reviewers for their very constructive criticisms, which have helped considerably to clarify the issues. Finally I am grateful to Dean Paul Tummers and the Faculty of Cultural Sciences of the University of Maastricht for providing me with time to develop these ideas in peace. ReferencesThe paper does not include a standalone list of references, but numerous references are included in the extensive Notes.
|
