Knowledge-based systems and geological survey

This personal and pragmatic review of the philosophy underpinning methods of geological surveying suggests that important influences of information technology have yet to make their impact. Early approaches took existing systems as metaphors, retaining the separation of maps, map explanations and information archives, organised around map sheets of fixed boundaries, scale and content. But system design should look ahead: a computer-based knowledge system for the same purpose can be built around hierarchies of spatial objects and their relationships, with maps as one means of visualisation, and information types linked as hypermedia and integrated in mark-up languages. The system framework and ontology, derived from the general geoscience model, could support consistent representation of the underlying concepts and maintain reference information on object classes and their behaviour. Models of processes and historical configurations could clarify the reasoning at any level of object detail and introduce new concepts such as complex systems. The up-to-date interpretation might centre on spatial models, constructed with explicit geological reasoning and evaluation of uncertainties. Assuming (at a future time) full computer support, the field survey results could be collected in real time as a multimedia stream, hyperlinked to and interacting with the other parts of the system as appropriate. Throughout, the knowledge is seen as human knowledge, with interactive computer support for recording and storing the information and processing it by such means as interpolating, correlating, browsing, selecting, retrieving, manipulating, calculating, analysing, generalising, filtering, visualising and delivering the results. Responsibilities may have to be reconsidered for various aspects of the system, such as: field surveying; spatial models and interpretation; geological processes, past configurations and reasoning; standard setting, system framework and ontology maintenance; training; storage, preservation, and dissemination of digital records

UML to XML-Schema Transformation: a Case Study in Managing Alternative Model Transformations in MDA

In a Model Driven Architecture (MDA) software development process, models are\ud repeatedly transformed to other models in order to finally achieve a set of models with enough details to implement a system. Generally, there are multiple ways to transform one model into another model. Alternative target models differ in their quality properties and the selection of a particular model is determined on the basis of specific requirements. Software engineers must be able to identify, compare and select the appropriate transformations within the given set of requirements. The current transformation languages used for describing and executing model transformations only provide means to specify the transformations but do not help to identify and select from the alternative transformations. In this paper we propose a process and a set of techniques for constructing a transformation space for a given transformation problem. The process uses a source model, its meta-model and the meta-model of the target as input and generates a transformation space. Every element in that space represents a transformation that produces a result that is an instance of the target meta-model. The requirements that must be fulfilled by the result are captured and represented in a quality model. We explain our approach using an illustrative example for transforming a platform independent model expressed in UML into platform specific models that represent XML schemas. A particular quality model of extensibility is presented in the paper

A Pattern Based Approach for Re-engineering Non-Ontological Resources into Ontologies

With the goal of speeding up the ontology development process, ontology engineers are starting to reuse as much as possible available ontologies and non-ontological resources such as classification schemes, thesauri, lexicons and folksonomies, that already have some degree of consensus. The reuse of such non-ontological resources necessarily involves their re-engineering into ontologies. Non-ontological resources are highly heterogeneous in their data model and contents: they encode different types of knowledge, and they can be modeled and implemented in different ways. In this paper we present (1) a typology for non-ontological resources, (2) a pattern based approach for re-engineering non-ontological resources into ontologies, and (3) a use case of the proposed approach

Shape interpretation with design computing

How information is interpreted has significant impact on how it can be used. This is particularly important in design where information from a wide variety of sources is used in a wide variety of contexts and in a wide variety of ways. This paper is concerned with the information that is created, modified and analysed during design processes, specifically with the information that is represented in shapes. It investigates how design computing seeks to support these processes, and the difficulties that arise when it is necessary to consider alternative interpretations of shape. The aim is to establish the problem of shape interpretation as a general challenge for research in design computing, rather than a difficulty that is to be overcome within specific processes. Shape interpretations are common characteristics of several areas of enquiry in design computing. This paper reviews these, brings an integrated perspective and draws conclusions about how this underlying process can be supported

Converting relational databases into object relational databases

This paper proposes an approach for migrating existing Relational DataBases (RDBs) into Object-Relational DataBases (ORDBs). The approach is superior to existing proposals as it can generate not only the target schema but also the data instances. The solution takes an existing RDB as input, enriches its metadata representation with required semantics, and generates an enhanced canonical data model, which captures essential characteristics of the target ORDB, and is suitable for migration. A prototype has been developed, which migrates successfully RDBs into ORDBs (Oracle 11g) based on the canonical model. The experimental results were very encouraging, demonstrating that the proposed approach is feasible, efficient and correct

Some issues in data model mapping

Numerous data models have been reported in the literature since the early 1970's. They have been used as database interfaces and as conceptual design tools. The mapping between schemas expressed according to the same data model or according to different models is interesting for theoretical and practical purposes. This paper addresses some of the issues involved in such a mapping. Of special interest are the identification of the mapping parameters and some current approaches for handling the various situations that require a mapping

Two Disputes of Methods Three Constructivisms and Three Liberalisms. Part I

The paper proposes to reconsider the methodology and history of economics radically, whether present day mainstream or heterodox versions of it. The profession of economists must definitely abandon Cartesian dualism and adopt Vygotskian constructivism. In fact constructivist economics already existed in the past and was cognitively very successful and socially very useful. It was the economics of Gustav Schmoller’s historico-ethical school and the institutionalist economics of John R. Commons, traditions of which are totally ignored by the contemporary community of economists. The former tradition was based on Dilthey’s hermeneutics and the latter on Peirce’s pragmatism. It is worth to underline that hermeneutics and pragmatism are both predecessors of Vygotskian constructivism. During the last two decades a lot was written by economists on pragmatist, constructivist and discursive approaches to the methodology and history of economics, but those who wrote on these topics viewed them from the dualistic point of view. My paper is an appeal to economists to reconsider Methodenstreit. The dispute of methods between Schmoller and Menger can be considered as a repetition of a similar dispute taking place more than two hundred years earlier between Robert Boyle and Thomas Hobbes. Schmoller-Menger dispute started soon after the beginning of the institutionalisation of experimentally-oriented economics which happened with the creation in 1873 of the Vereinf?r Sozialpolitik. Boyle-Hobbes dispute started in 1660, when the Royal Society of London had been founded, the cradle of the institution of science. Schmoller was one of the creators of the Verein, and Boyle was one of the founders of the Royal Society. The activities of both societies were similar in several respects: they represented efforts to collect data, working out of detailed reports and collective evaluation of obtained results. For Hobbes, as for Menger, the model of ‘science’ was geometry. Boyle and Schmoller privileged collecting and analysing data. Boyle did win the dispute, Schmoller did loose. It happened because of different attitudes of powerful groups in societies towards natural scientific experimental research and experimental social research. They were interested in the former, and they saw much more danger than benefit for them in the latter. On the contrary, they were interested in abstract theoretical constructions justifying the market vision of society and laissez-faire. This kind of constructions corresponded to deeply enrooted scholastic traditions of European universities to teach theology and linked with it philosophy. In the framework of these traditions, mathematics was considered as a summit of the scientific approach. On the one hand, the adoption of constructivism by economists would turn their discipline into a science functionally close to natural sciences. On the other hand the Vygotskian constructivism, as a social and political philosophy, once accepted by economists, may lead them to become preachers of the communitarian liberalism with its emphasis on social responsibility, deliberative democracy, and discourse ethics