This week I would like you to present to the class a review of the following journal article:
Ontology and Ontologies in Information Systems: Analysis and Design: a critique
Download Ontology and Ontologies in Information Systems: Analysis and Design: a critique
Then write about the following:
- Summarize the article
- Discuss the article’s strengths and weaknesses in terms of the study
- Could this methodology be applied to your ontology creation? Explain why or why not.
Ontology and Ontologies in Information Systems Analysis and Design: A Critique Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) AMCIS 2004 Proceedings Americas Conference on Information Systems(AMCIS) December 2004 Ontology and Ontologies in Information Systems Analysis and Design: A Critique Boris Wyssusek Queensland University of Technology Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2004 This material is brought to you by the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in AMCIS 2004 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact elibrary@aisnet.org. Recommended Citation Wyssusek, Boris, "Ontology and Ontologies in Information Systems Analysis and Design: A Critique" (2004). AMCIS 2004 Proceedings. 535. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2004/535 http://aisel.aisnet.org?utm_source=aisel.aisnet.org%2Famcis2004%2F535&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2004?utm_source=aisel.aisnet.org%2Famcis2004%2F535&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis?utm_source=aisel.aisnet.org%2Famcis2004%2F535&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis?utm_source=aisel.aisnet.org%2Famcis2004%2F535&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2004?utm_source=aisel.aisnet.org%2Famcis2004%2F535&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2004/535?utm_source=aisel.aisnet.org%2Famcis2004%2F535&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages mailto:elibrary@aisnet.org%3E Wyssusek Ontology and Ontologies in ISAD: A Critique Ontology and Ontologies in Information Systems Analysis and Design: A Critique Boris Wyssusek Queensland University of Technology b.wyssusek@qut.edu.au ABSTRACT Ontology and the concept of ontologies have attracted considerable attention in the context of research on information systems analysis and design. Being rooted in philosophy, both ontology and the concept of ontologies bear their own history of philosophical debates which have quite often been ignored when applied in the field of information systems. In this contribution it is claimed that a more comprehensive discussion of well-known philosophical issues of ontology and ontologies will help us not only to understand the scope of their applicability in the context of information systems analysis and design. It will also provide us with insights about limitations as well as with directions for issues in need of further research. The argument is critical yet affirmative. It aims at the expansion of the scope of current discourses and focuses especially on socio-philosophical aspects that need to be addressed in order to leverage the full potential of using ontology and ontologies for the provision of a theoretical foundation for information systems analysis and design.. Keywords Information systems analysis and design, formal ontologies, philosophical ontology, modeling grammars. INTRODUCTION In the last two decades ontology and ontologies have gained considerable attention in the field of information systems research and practice, especially in the domain of information systems analysis and design (ISAD) (e.g., Checkland, 1981; Boland, 1982; Winograd & Flores, 1986; Wand & Weber, 1988; Floyd, 1992; Hirschheim et al., 1995; Weber, 1997a; Green & Rosemann, 1999; Milton et al., 2000; Fettke & Loos, 2003). Understanding information systems as essentially representational systems, i.e., systems that represent facts about the ‘outside world’, it is of major interest to know what there is to be represented and how to represent it. Thus, it is only of consequence when information systems research turns its attention to the philosophical discipline ontology that has ever since been concerned with “being” and “what exists.” Of all domains within information systems research and practice it is most likely the domain of ISAD that has the most and the strongest ties to the world “out there.” It is, in general, concerned with the analysis of “real-world” systems, the determination of changes that should occur in the “real-world” after the introduction (or modification) of an information system (elicitation of requirements), and eventually, based upon these requirements, the design of information systems. ISAD is embedded in the whole systems development life cycle. As such it is generally understood as part of a methodical process that covers all activities from the identification of problems and opportunities to the implementation and evaluation of the system (Kendall & Kendall, 1992, p. 66 ff.). An essential feature of ISAD is its use of models that on the one hand capture parts of the ‘real world’ to be represented in the information systems, and, on the other hand, capture certain characteristics of the information system to be developed, e.g., its design. The acknowledged importance of modeling for ISAD finds its expression in the abundance of modeling methods available and in the continuous efforts to improve these methods as well as to develop new ones. Yet despite the abundance of modeling methods, they hardly come with any theoretical foundation. And it is here where the interest of ISAD in ontology and ontologies arises (e.g., Wand & Weber, 1988; Wand et al., 1995; Wand, 1996). The attraction of ontology is certainly due to its status as a well-established philosophical discipline, equipped with tradition, famous individuals, a host of literature, and a high reputation in the general scientific community. As such we should welcome the possibility of information systems research opening up and drawing on the findings of other well-established disciplines. But, as always, there are certain limitations we need to be aware of. Information systems researchers are seldom philosophers. Our drawing on a discipline we are not familiar with is prone to the fallacies of gross misunderstandings, false Proceedings of the Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York, New York, August 2004 4303 Wyssusek Ontology and Ontologies in ISAD: A Critique analogies, and the like. Especially in philosophy, almost every term comes with its own history of debates; precise definitions are rare and in order to fully grasp a notion we first need to know and to understand the theory behind it. Nevertheless, there are good reasons why we should become engaged in philosophical theory. As COLLIER (1994) states, a “good part of the answer to the question ‘why philosophy?’ is that the alternative to philosophy is not no philosophy, but bad philosophy. The ‘unphilosophical’ person has an unconscious philosophy, which they apply in their practice – whether of science or politics or daily life” (p. 17). Since the meaning of ontology and ontologies is bound to the respective philosophical theories that are being used as horizons of interpretation, we should not only be aware of their immediate consequences for the understanding of ontology and ontologies but should also be aware of more distant consequences that derive from the use of the respective theory. A quite common understanding of ontology and ontologies in the ISAD literature is based on the ontological theory of BUNGE (1977; 1979; 1993). As such it is grounded in a rather materialist-realist philosophical position that hardly finds any support in contemporary philosophy and social sciences. Consequently, when we consistently follow the ideas of BUNGE, it is impossible to connect the ontological foundation of ISAD with most of the contemporary literature dealing with the social world that ultimately provides us with everything that might be represented in an information system. Hence, the uncritical adoption of BUNGE’s ontological theory not only restricts our understanding of the world but also narrows our view to such an extent that we become unable to recognize the limitations as well as the negative ethical consequences of the application of this theory. It is not my intention to dogmatically counter BUNGE’s theory with another theory. Rather I ask the curious reader to engage in critical reflection when s/he is about adopt any ontological theory as a foundation for ISAD. In HABERMAS’ (1972) sense, the ontological foundation of information systems analysis and design should not solely be guided by an instrumental- technical and/or a practical-hermeneutical cognitive interest but also by an emancipatory interest that eventually helps to overcome self-inflicted cognitive constraints. ON ONTOLOGY, ONTOLOGIES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN It seems warranted to say that during the last two decades the concepts ontology and ontologies have gained considerable attention in the field of information systems research and development. Actually, this is a false statement since it conveys the impression that the words ontology and ontologies each refer to a single well-formed concept. Already a superficial reading of relevant literature reveals that there are many (different) concepts whose commonality sometimes only exists in sharing the name “ontology.” Thus, in order to be more precise, one should write: the words “ontology” and “ontologies” enjoy an increasingly widespread use in the information systems literature. When confronted with a plurality of meanings of the word “ontology” one might be tempted to ask: “if ontology is everything, maybe it is nothing?” Refraining from the apparent nihilism in this question a profound skepticism is appropriate if one is about to base such serious tasks as information systems analysis and design on ‘the’ concept of ontology. The fact that the spell-checker of the Microsoft word-processor rejects the plural of the word “ontology” seems to be a rather far- fetched motivation for the closer examination of the words ontology and ontologies, but it points directly to a fundamental issue. Even if early Greek philosophers were already concerned with ontological problems, it was only in the 17th century that the word ontology was introduced to denote a branch of philosophy (contemplative sciences) (Goclenius, 1613, p. 16). Refraining from confronting the reader with the etymology of the word ontology, this contribution focuses on the exploration of a distinction which is considered to be most useful for the understanding of what ontology is all about. The following encyclopedic definition will serve as starting point for this purpose: “The word ‘ontology’ is used to refer to philosophical investigation of existence, or being. Such investigation may be directed towards the concept of being, asking what ‘being’ means, or what it is for something to exist; it may also (or instead) be concerned with the question ‘what exists?’, or ‘what general sorts of things are there?’” (Craig, 1998). This definition is flawed in one major respect: it might lead the reader to the conclusion that both questions – “what does it mean for something to exist?” and “what exists?” – can be answered independently. But it is trivial to realize that we cannot answer the question “what exists?” without having answered the question “what does it mean for something to exist?” first. With HEIDEGGER’s words: “Basically, all ontology, no matter how rich and firmly compacted a system of categories it has at its disposal, remains blind and perverted from its own aim, if it has not first adequately clarified the meaning of Being, and conceived this clarification as its fundamental task” (Heidegger, 1962, p. 31). Another important point was made by KANT who criticized the very idea of ontology. According to him, ontology “presumptuously claims to supply, in systematic doctrinal form, synthetic a priori knowledge of things in general” (Kant, 1787, B303). In