> My goal here for the ontology project is not only to clarify the many
> fuzzy issues regarding the knowledge structure of media arts, but to
> work toward a system of networked micro-ontologies (micro, meaning
> domain specific ontologies). The network in itself transforms the
> micro-ontology system into a macro-ontology which essentially would be
> a compehensive knowledge map. (01)
I believe this is essentially the same idea as that underlying the W3C's
Semantic Web initiative [1]. The elegant part of that being that it builds
upon existing web technologies (the SW "layer cake" [2] appearing in
numerous slideshows ;-). The web itself becomes the knowledge map.
Examples of micro-ontologies expressed in OWL/RDF can be found at [3] and
[4]. (02)
Making ontologies immersive, either
> graphically or textually (OM: Ontology MOO) would in effect transform
> the 'map' into an inhabited knowledge system - while the system grows
> and shrinks from day to day, and year to year - insert the time lapse
> photography here :). (03)
This is a wonderful concept - there are one or two SW 'browsers' around (a
nice domain-specific one is the FOAFnaut [5]), but the surface hasn't even
been scratched in the use of immersive UIs to the knowledge. (04)
> I am interested in the aesthetics of the dynamic knowledge structure
> itself, and the pragmatic or discourse aspect of media arts. An
> Ontology of Media for example, will hopefully emerge here as a very
> interesting discourse node (rather, I know it exists; I would just like
> to find it, or focus it). I am interested in the technology which will
> visualize and maintain the massive object oriented system. (05)
>From the SW point of view, the 'massive object oriented system' is the
(enhanced) web. (Not strictly OO, but close, being resource-oriented
variations on Description Logics). Visualization is another matter
altogether... (06)
The
> organization of the onotology net should 'emerge' rather than be
> categorically manipulated. That is why I am interested in
> micro-ontologies and bottom-up design methods (rather than the upper
> ontology projects). The upper ontologies should result from the
> application of different types of algorithms applied to the network for
> some given purpose. (07)
I'd very much agree with that - for maximum utility I think the ontologies
should primarily be derived directly from the knowledge domains, any
connections to upper levels should come later, and (IMHO) almost certainly
aren't necessary. However it still makes for an interesting exercise... (08)
Media arts is an interesting domain, given that on the one hand the 'media'
aspect can relate to concrete entities (e.g. format of a specific video
file), but the human value of the entities is almost by definition
intangible. (09)
Two specific things I'm curious about at this point - are there any existing
surveys of the use of ontologies in digital art? What is the intended scope
(or how will it be determined)? (e.g. is Michaelangelo's David out of scope,
but a digital photograph of it in scope?) (010)
Cheers,
Danny. (011)
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/Talks/swandwai/slide17-0.html
[3] http://esw.w3.org/topic/VocabularyMarket
[4] http://www.schemaweb.info/
[5] http://www.foafnaut.org/ (012)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://dao.cim3.net/forum/dao-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://dao.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/dao-forum/
Shared Files: http://dao.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://dao.cim3.net/wiki/
Community Portal: http://dao.cim3.net/
To Post: mailto:dao-forum@dao.cim3.net (013)
|