Showing papers on "Ontology-based data integration published in 1980"

Indiscerniblity and ontology

Abstract: We do not learn first what to talk about and then what to say about it. 1 The subject matter of our discourse, our ontology, is intimately bound up with our expressive resources, our ideology. So it is, perhaps, with theories in generalthe ontology of a theory is somehow a function of the theory's descriptive apparatus. A rather different view of the matter emerges if we think in terms of model theory, the formal study of interpretive structures and theory interpretation. One begins with a language, chooses a set of objects to serve as denotata of the referring expressions, and then proceeds to define various relations over the chosen entities, which serve as extensions of predicate expressions. Thus ontology, the specification of the objects which the theory is 'about,' somehow precedes the specification of the theory's expressive powers. It is as though we can first decide what the theory is about and then decide what the theory says about it. In less formal contexts, we often hear it said that a given theory is about a certain kind of thing-.mass points, minds, income groups, truth values, societies, species, colors, etc. Such claims draw the attention of the Ontologist, who asks whether there really are such objects for theories to be about and, if so, how they relate to the more familiar objects of ordinary (or scientific) discourse. But what is an object? And how are we to construe talk about there being (or there not being) different kinds of objects? In what follows, I lay some of the ontologist's qualms to rest, by transfiguring the ontological claims which arouse the suspicion. I argue that the specification of a theory's subject matter amounts to neither more nor less than a specification of certain features of the theory's expressive resources. Part I provides an explication of Peter. Geach's theory of Relative Identity; there is far greater metaphysical content to Geach's position than has often been not iceda consequence, in part, of Geach's own

Spatial data integration

Abstract: Spatial data integration is defined as the process of combining multiple spatial data types and providing for their storage, retrieval, analysis, and display Automated procedures to support data integration are related to spatial data characteristics, software features, and hardware capabilities Spatial data integration issues associated with data characteristics are discussed as discipline issues; software and hardware features are referred to as automated data processing issues Spatial data integration concepts, issues and research are reviewed