28.11.2012 Views

Innovation and Ontologies

Innovation and Ontologies

Innovation and Ontologies

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Ontology in Philosophy 137<br />

The meaning triangle shows the interaction between symbols (or words), concepts (or terms) <strong>and</strong><br />

the objects (or things). The triangle demonstrates that the relationship between a symbol <strong>and</strong> an<br />

object is indirect <strong>and</strong> requires an interpreter. This interpreter invokes the corresponding concept<br />

<strong>and</strong> links it to an object (Maedche, 2003; Pirlein, 1995). Interpretation can be done by a human<br />

being or a machine.<br />

During interpretation, the human or automatic interpreter 158 selects one correspondent out of the<br />

number of possible correspondents (Maedche, Staab & Studer, 2001). To do this correctly, a logic<br />

system is needed which reduces the possible relationships between symbol, concept <strong>and</strong> object;<br />

in the best case down to one relation (Maedche, Staab & Studer, 2001; Staab, 2002). The<br />

following figure illustrates a successful communication: sender <strong>and</strong> receiver evoke the same<br />

concept.<br />

figure 44 Successful communication according to analytic philosophy<br />

During the 20 th century, scientific philosophy further pursued ontological thinking (Schuette &<br />

Zelewski, 2001). Husserl (1950 & 1965) regarded his phenomenology as a universal ontology .<br />

Hartmann’s seminal articles on a new ontology followed this trajectory (1949 & 1963). The topic<br />

was also of interest to Heidegger (e.g. in Siewerth, 1963) who wrote on a fundamental ontology. The<br />

existentialist Sartre was interested in a phenomenological ontology (Sartre, 2003).<br />

Quine finally is responsible for the simple, yet exhaustive statement to the eye of a philosopher, to<br />

be is simply “the value of a bound variable” (Quine, 1969 & 2003). This already indicates the path<br />

to the (formalized) concept of ontology in Information Science described in section 1.2 <strong>and</strong><br />

subsection 5.3.3.<br />

158 In the terminology of Watzlawick <strong>and</strong> his colleagues from the research field of communication, the interpreter is the receiver of the message<br />

(Watzlawick, Beavin & Jackson, 1967). Though differing in terminology, the principles are the same in both schools of thought.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!