How the IMF Team is building a four-dimensional top-level ontology 4D-SiG – Thursday 5th May Chris Partridge – Chief Ontologist, BORO Solutions Information Junction The Information Management Experts Structure Introducing the IMF Team Background Information Management Framework Choice-based framework TLO Initial Use Situating the TLO in the IMF Data Section: Core Constructional Ontology Data Section: Top Level Ontology 2 Who is doing the work: introducing the IMF Team Information Junction The Information Management Experts Joint Policy Leads – National Digital Twin programme : Alexandra Luck Barry Blackwell Background Evolving Information Management Framework Choice-based framework 4 The evolving Information Management Framework UK’s National Digital Twin programme (NDTp) Information Management Framework (IMF) “a national system for connecting digital assets designed to enable competition on delivery and encourage innovation and development over time” Policy paper - National Data Strategy - Published 9 September 2020 “This will include further developing the Information Management Framework , which will seek to establish a common language by which digital twins can communicate securely and effectively, part of the Centre for Digital Built Britain’s work towards developing a National Digital Twin.” https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-national-data-strategy/national-data-strategy 5 Latest incarnation: Managing Shared Data : An introduction to the Information Management Landscape and the Information Management Framework style.visibility style.visibility style.visibility style.visibility style.visibility A framework for assessing an ontology’s architectural choices https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/313452 Appendix E: Summary of Framework Assessment Matrix Results 31 ontological choices 37 top ontologies shortlisted and assessed The ontological choices shape the architecture of the ontology web-based: https://digitaltwinhub.co.uk/a-survey-of-top-level-ontologies/#a_survey_of_TLOs_contents 6 Architecture: the choice of whether to stratify or unify “4.2.2 Horizontal aspects: stratification versus unification There is a group of fundamental choices that impact the ontological architecture which involves whether or not to make a distinction. If one chooses not to make the distinction, one only introduces a single type. If one chooses to make the distinction, one introduces two types; one for each alternative. The choice boils down to whether to horizontally stratify or unify. One can describe choosing to make the distinction as ‘separating one potentially unified type into two’, creating a horizontal stratification in the hierarchy – and not making the distinction, ‘unifying the potentially separated two types into one’.” 7 Horizontal stratification choices 8 {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} Label Unified type Separate types Stratifying relation spacetime spatio-temporal locations spatial locations, temporal locations spaces are multiply located at times (though this is often a derived relation – from an occupying object’s links to both space and time) locations supersubstantival objects (physical) objects, locations objects are (exactly) located at their locations properties objects substances, properties substances are bearers of properties endurants perdurants continuants, occurrents occurrent is dependent upon continuant immaterial (physical) objects material objects, immaterial objects immaterial objects are part of material objects Spacetime stratification: unifying or stratifying A key choice: unifying or stratifying space and time temporal entities spatial entities entities more stratified supersubstantive objects more unified happens at 9 Horizontal Aspects: Stratification: unifying and separated 10 The progenitors of the IMF’s TLO From: The Approach to Develop the Foundation Data Model for the Information Management Framework https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/files/250221_the_choice_of_start_point_for_the_foundation_data_model_for_the_information_management_framework_1.pdf 11 TLO Initial Use Case: ‘Euclidean’ standards "The epistemic value of a theory cannot be determined in isolation from its use, and successful use of a theory requires pragmatic understanding." Understanding scientific understanding - Henk W. de Regt - p. 36 12 TLO Initial use case is ‘Euclidean’ standards ISO 10303 Part 42 INSPIRE OS Open Names A core set of standards and associated data These assume a ‘Euclidean geometry’ typically (3 + 1)D Aim for an integrated 4D common foundation for these https://digitaltwinhub.co.uk/a-survey-of-idms-and-rdls-intro/ 13 Two clear ‘things’ emerge {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} spatial objects one, two or three (spatial) dimensional objects either eternal or recurring (at each snapshot) technically rigid, in the sense of no (or practically no) deformation over time spatial locations where the spatial objects are located typically expressed as a (2/3D) coordinate system note: these have the same characteristics as spatial objects (eternal/recurring and rigid) Current situation: space appears to be Euclidean no clear way of dealing with time (mostly, not even mentioned) no deep formalization 14 Some examples ISO 10303 Part 42 INSPIRE OS Open Names {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} places spatial objects geography geometry roads spatial objects geography geometry solids spatial objects CAD geometry surfaces spatial objects CAD geometry points spatial objects CAD geometry Eastings and Northings spatial locations geography geometry coordinates (2D and 3D) spatial locations CAD geometry examples 15 Proposed scope: ‘space-time’ Proposed scope: a formalized, unified, spatio-temporal account of spatial objects and locations hence named ‘space-time’ Spatio-temporal (unifying) challenge: provide, a clear, unified way of dealing with space-time a deep formalization of space and time Spatial (unifying+) challenge: provide, an account of spatial objects and locations in space-time a unified, super-substantival account. there is also a nexus of other things needed for this, including: rigid objects and being relatively at rest 16 Situating the TLO in the IMF Drilling down into the Foundational Data Layer 17 Drilling down into the Foundational Data Layer: Step 1: IMF Data Standards Circles The last (bottom) four of the seven circles focus on data standards The IMF – broadly organised into seven circles. 18 Drilling down into the Foundational Data Layer: Step 2: IMF Data 19 Corresponding to the IMF Foundational Data Circle is the Foundational Data Layer. IMF Data breaks down into three data layers: Dynamic Data Layer Reference Data Layer, and Foundational Data Layer. Drilling down into the Foundational Data Layer: Step 3 : Its three data sections Corresponding to each of the Foundational Data Circles is a Data Section. The Foundational Data Layer breaks down into three data sections: Foundation Data Model (FDM) Top-Level Ontology (TLO) Core Constructional Ontology (CCO) Our focus is on the last two sections 20 The data sections’ data components Note: Two types of data component: module mortar (to be explained later ) 21 Four-dimensional space-time emerges in the final component Bird’s eye view: Data’s stratified structure 22 Three types of strata, three levels of granularity: data layer data section data component Data Section Component Data Section Data Section Component Data Component Data Layer Data Layer Data Layer A word of warning: Underlying inter-connectedness From: Atomicity vs. Infinite Divisibility of Space, Claudio Masolo , Laure Vieu . 1999. COSIT '99: Proceedings of the International Conference on Spatial Information Theory: Cognitive and Computational Foundations of Geographic Information Science The stratified structure consolidates this inter-connectedness into a much simpler structure for ease of explanation and efficiency of development 23 Example of interconnectedness Core Constructional Ontology (CCO) Data section composed of data components 24 CCO – Data Components unifying the three constructors introducing the three constructors general constructional framework background logical framework See: Core Constructional Ontology: The Foundation for the Top-Level Ontology of the Information Management Framework Top Level Categories: Categories for the Top-Level Ontology of the Information Management Framework Looking ahead: 4D doesn’t appear at this stage. pluralities constructor sets sum constructor individuals tuple constructor tuples e.g. set of individuals 25 set constructor pluralology – the logical framework See: The Many and the One: A Philosophical Study of Plural Logic, Salvatore Florio & Øystein Linnebo. (2021) pluralology is based upon pluralities pluralities are distinct from objects pluralities are collections of objects objects are their members pluralities can have sub-pluralities where every member of the sub-plurality is also a member of the super-plurality pluralities are extensional if two pluralities collect the same objects, then they are the same plurality looking ahead – pluralities are the inputs to constructors 26 constructionology – the general framework a general framework for constructors constructors take pluralities of objects (the components) as inputs and construct a new object (the composite) this gives rise to composing relations. these composing relations are ontologically ‘dependence’ or ‘grounding’ relations. 27 setology (module) setology is built using the set constructor this constructs sets from pluralities of objects it also gives rise to the element-of-set relation members of the plurality are elements of the constructed set identity (extensional) : two sets are the same if they have the same elements. the plurality of sets is the plurality of all objects constructed by the set constructor. 28 mereology (module) mereology is built using the sum constructor this constructs individuals from pluralities of individuals it also gives rise to the part-of-whole relation members of the plurality are part of the constructed individual identity (extensional) : two individuals are the same if they have the same parts. the plurality of individuals is the plurality of all objects constructed by the sum constructor. mereology starts from the givens: these are the mereological simples (atoms) 29 tupleology (module) tupleology is built using the tuple constructor this constructs tuples from pluralities of objects it also gives rise to the tuple-place relation members of the plurality occupy tuple-places in the constructed tuple identity (extensional) : two tuples are the same if they have the same tuple-placed objects in the same tuple-places. the plurality of tuples is the plurality of all objects constructed by the tuple constructor. 30 setology, mereology and tupleology (mortar) the ‘mortar’ component merges the three separate constructor modules. The common constructional framework makes the merging simple This example both shows why the merge is needed and how it works: the mereology module will contain the plurality of individuals – it doesn’t ‘know’ about sets. the setology module will contain the set constructor– it doesn’t ‘know’ about individuals. the setology, mereology and tupleology contains both the mereology and setology modules and so the plurality of individuals and the set constructor the set constructor can take the plurality of individuals as input to construct the set of individuals . Another example: It is only in the merge that we can say that all constructed objects are either sets, individuals or tuples. Note: mortar components merely harmonise the resources they are merging, they do not introduce new content. 31 Key aspects of the CCO approach {F5AB1C69-6EDB-4FF4-983F-18BD219EF322} Foundational Unifying Constructional Object completeness The construction process supplies all the objects Common emergence of categories All the categories (sets, individuals, tuples) arise through construction Dependency (Grounding) Construction implies dependence Categorical completeness It also supplies the categories and their associated hierarchical relations Common basis for identity criteria Identity criteria arise through construction, with differences arising from the way they are constructed Parsimony (Reduction) Built from a small set of fundamental objects Common identity criteria It also determines the identity criteria (extensional based on the type of constructor and its input) Uniform commonalities and differences Commonalities and differences between categories captured by features of the underlying constructors Consistency Construction can be a basis for consistency 32 See: Core Constructional Ontology: The Foundation for the Top-Level Ontology of the Information Management Framework Top Level Ontology (TLO) Data section composed of data components 33 TLO Components Four-dimensional space-time emerges in the final module atoms connection self-connected before-after worlds worldlines worldframes 4D space-time world 4D regions congruent curves 34 curves mereotopology mereotopology introduces connection : two individuals can be connected (or distinct) From this it defines self-connection an individual whose every part is connected to every other part. 35 worldology wordology introduces (possible) worlds defined in mereotopological terms as maximally self-connected regions worlds are self-connected individuals that are not part of any other self-connected individuals so different worlds are not connected in any way when we introduce time, we can say that they are not connected spatially or temporally. This has been called a Lewisian or concretist view. “There are countless other worlds, other very inclusive things. Our world consists of us and all our surroundings, however, remote in time and space; just as it is one big thing having lesser things as parts, so likewise do other worlds have lesser other-worldly things as parts.” David Lewis, 1986. On The Plurality of Worlds, p. 2 36 atomology atomology introduces atoms defined (simply) as individuals which have no (proper) parts 37 curveology curveology introduces (simple, open) curves defined using mereotopology and atomology as minimal, self-connected objects containing two atom endpoints are composed of atoms – zero-dimensional objects 38 regionology regionology introduces higher-level dimensional objects, including 4D Regions it collects together homogeneously two-, three- and four-dimensional regular objects where regular objects are self-connected using mereological operations, such as union and intersection, less regular objects can be generated 39 congruentology congruentology introduces a notion of congruent curves – a relation over curves (curveology) it collects together congruent curves that is those of the same ‘length’ 40 Prior form: chronology and worldlineology {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} Year Author Title 1919 A. N. Whitehead An enquiry concerning the principles of natural knowledge 1928 R. Carnap The Logical Structure of the World 1936 B. Russell On order in time 1939 J. H. Woodger The Technique of Theory Construction 1981 P. Needham Temporal Intervals and Temporal Order 1982 C. Lejewski Ontology: What's Next? Opportunity to build upon previous work, including: Key architecture: time as a before-after relation between individuals worldlines as characterising space-time Introduced the name ‘chronology’ 41 chronology chronology introduces a (completely) before-after relation between individuals from this the other temporal relations can be defined 42 worldlineology Illustration: Minkowski, Hermann (1909), "Raum und Zeit", Physikalische Zeitschrift, 10: 75–88 worldlineology introduces worldlines defined in terms of a time-like (chronology) curve (curveology) every two points (atoms) in the time-like curve have to be in a before-after relation 43 worldframeology worldframeology introduces worldframes defined as sets of ‘parallel’ worldlines (worldlineology) that cover space-time, where ‘parallel’ is defined using congruence (congruentology) there are typically an infinite number of worldframes Year Title Link 2019 Coordinate Systems: Level Ascending Ontological Options https://borosolutions.net/coordinate-systems-multi-2019 2013 Air Control Means: An ‘Improving Precision’ Case Study https://borosolutions.net/air-control-means-ontobras-2013 2013 Geospatial and Temporal Reference: A Case Study Illustrating (Radical) Refactoring https://borosolutions.net/geospatial-temporal-reference-ontobras-2013 2011 An information model for geospatial and temporal references https://borosolutions.net/qq2011-model-geospatial-temporal-references See also: 44 homogeneously dimensional worldframeology homogeneously dimensional worldframeology introduces worldframes that are homogeneously (higher-level) dimensional, including 4D space-time world in other words, homogeneously four dimensional (regionology) worlds (worldology) and their worldframes (worldframeology), including a distinction between space and time (chronology) 45 Abbott, Edwin A. (1884). Flatland: A Romance in Many Dimensions. New York: Dover Recap: Journey to Four-Dimensional Space-Time 46 Questions 47 Additional References Florio, S. & Linnebo , Ø. (forthcoming). Core Constructional Ontology: The Foundation for the Top-Level Ontology of the Information Management Framework. Florio, S. & Linnebo , Ø. (2021). The Many and the One: A Philosophical Study of Plural Logic, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Hetherington, J. & West, M. (2020). The pathway towards an Information Management Framework - A “Commons” for Digital Built Britain. CDBB. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.52659. Partridge, C. (forthcoming). Top Level Categories: Categories for the Top-Level Ontology of the Information Management Framework. Partridge, C. (forthcoming). Developing Thin Slices: An introduction to the methodology for developing the Foundation Data Model and Reference Data Library of the Information Management Framework. Partridge, C., Mitchell, A., Cook, A., Sullivan, J. & West, M. (2020). A Survey of Top-Level Ontologies - to inform the ontological choices for a Foundation Data Model. Partridge, C. (forthcoming). Developing Thin Slices: An introduction to the methodology for developing the Foundation Data Model and Reference Data Library of the Information Management Framework. West, M. (forthcoming). Information Quality Basics. West, M. (forthcoming). Managing Shared Data: An introduction to the Information Management Landscape and the Information Management Framework. West, M., Cook, A., Leal, D., Mitchell, A., Partridge, C. & Sullivan, J. (2020). The Approach to Develop the Foundation Data Model for the Information Management Framework. https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/files/approach_summaryreport_final.pdf. 48 49