An Ontology of Segregation: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(Created page with "961x961px<blockquote>Network representation of the segregation ontology: the inner ring contains the 32 types, the outer ring contains the 804 identified segregation forms (SFs). Colors represent the types. The lines connect each type with all the SFs that they are associated with. The colored dots in the SF ring show the types associated with each SF. Two randomly selected SFs and their corresponding types are highlighted. Navigate th...") |
Nettoworks (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Fig17 no title correct.png| | <blockquote>[[File:Fig17 no title correct.png|center|frameless|824x824px]]Network representation of the segregation ontology: the inner ring contains the 32 types, the outer ring contains the 804 identified segregation forms (SFs). Colors represent the types. The lines connect each type with all the SFs that they are associated with. The colored dots in the SF ring show the types associated with each SF. Two randomly selected SFs and their corresponding types are highlighted. Navigate the [https://kimonkrenz.github.io/openseadragon/ zoomable high-resolution figure] for more detail, or explore the [https://segregation-ontology.cityscience.group/ interactive ontology], which is currently under development.</blockquote> | ||
<big>Hundreds of forms of segregation across a diverse scientific literature encompassing 169 disciplinary fields have been have identified and mapped (see Netto et al., 2024), revealing the extraordinary connectivity between these forms. Given the complexity of this mosaic, how can we make it more comprehensible and valuable to the multidisciplinary community of researchers studying segregation and its many dimensions? Our approach has been identifying segregation forms and their relationships across over a century of literature. This search for a systemic understanding of segregation in its multiple manifestations is akin to an ontology. The term “ontology” originates from philosophy, where it refers to the study of existence. For example, Aristotle’s ontology defines primitive categories like substance and quality, used to account for existing entities. In the early 1980s, Artificial Intelligence (AI) researchers adopted the term in computer and information science to describe both a theory of a modeled world and a component of knowledge systems. An ontology defines a set of representational primitives, such as classes (or sets), attributes (or properties), and relationships, to model a domain of knowledge. This includes information about their meaning and the constraints on their logical application, similar to relational models for representing individuals, their attributes, and their relationships.</big> | <big>Hundreds of forms of segregation across a diverse scientific literature encompassing 169 disciplinary fields have been have identified and mapped (see Netto et al., 2024), revealing the extraordinary connectivity between these forms. Given the complexity of this mosaic, how can we make it more comprehensible and valuable to the multidisciplinary community of researchers studying segregation and its many dimensions? Our approach has been identifying segregation forms and their relationships across over a century of literature. This search for a systemic understanding of segregation in its multiple manifestations is akin to an ontology. The term “ontology” originates from philosophy, where it refers to the study of existence. For example, Aristotle’s ontology defines primitive categories like substance and quality, used to account for existing entities. In the early 1980s, Artificial Intelligence (AI) researchers adopted the term in computer and information science to describe both a theory of a modeled world and a component of knowledge systems. An ontology defines a set of representational primitives, such as classes (or sets), attributes (or properties), and relationships, to model a domain of knowledge. This includes information about their meaning and the constraints on their logical application, similar to relational models for representing individuals, their attributes, and their relationships.</big> | ||
