Subjectivity and Objectivity in Urban Knowledge Representation

Antonia Cataldo, Valerio Cutini, Valerio Di Pinto, Antonio M. Rinaldi

2014

Abstract

The question of subjectivity and objectivity of information is an important open issue in the knowledge engineering research community. In the context of space representation, they have been traditionally considered competing themes in the study of places, particularly in urban ones. This is highlighted by the distance, in terms of cultural training and operational approach, between the professionals of the city: urban planners and urban anthropologists. The growth in modeling capabilities allows a quantitative study of a city but information about the meanings of space elements are often not taken into account. Starting from this basic assumption, our paper aim is to give a novel point of view to integrate subjectivity and objectivity in an operational model. Space Syntax, as a theory and a methodology, is used as a tool to study the objectivity of the urban space. Ontologies, as an approach and a method to formally represent knowledge, is used to provide Space Syntax with the subjectivity of the same spaces.

References

  1. Barry, C. L. (1998). Document representations and clues to document relevance. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 49(14):1293-1303.
  2. Bateman, J. and Farrar, S. (2004). Towards a generic foundation for spatial ontology. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Conf. FOIS'04, pages 237-248.
  3. Cataldo, A. and Rinaldi, A. M. (2010). An ontological approach to represent knowledge in territorial planning science. CEUS, 34(2):117 - 132.
  4. Clancey, W. (1993). The Knowledge Level Reinterpreted: Modelling Socio-Technical Systems. IJIS, 8:33-49.
  5. Coeterier, J. (1996). Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the dutch landscape. Landscape and urban planning, 34(1):27-44.
  6. Eco, U. (1968). La struttura assente. La ricerca semiotica e il metodo strumentale. Bompiani, Milano, Italy.
  7. Europe, C. O. (2000). European landscape convention. In Report and Convention.
  8. Freeman, L. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, (1):215-239.
  9. Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl. Acquis., 5(2):199-220.
  10. Harter, S. P. (1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 43(9):602-615.
  11. Hillier, B. (2009). Spatial sustainability in cities. organic patterns and sustainable forms. In Proc. of SSS'09, pages 1-20, Stockholm, Sweden. KTH.
  12. Hillier, B. and Netto, V. (2001). Society seen through the prism of space: outline of a theory of society and space. In Proc. of SSS'01, pages 1-27, Atlanta, Georgia. Georgia Institute of Technology.
  13. Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine. Cambridge University Press, UK.
  14. Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press, UK.
  15. Janowicz, K., Scheider, S., and Adams, B. (2013). A geosemantics flyby. In Reasoning Web. Semantic Technologies for Intelligent Data Access, pages 230-250. Springer.
  16. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of environmental psychology, 15(3):169-182.
  17. Neches, R., Fikes, R., Finin, T., Gruber, T., Patil, R., Senator, T., and Swartout, W. R. (1991). Enabling technology for knowledge sharing. AI Mag., 12(3):36-56.
  18. Nutter, J. T. (1998). Epistemology. In Shapiro, S., editor, Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence. John WyleyS.
  19. Park, T. (1993). The nature of relevance in information retrieval: An empirical study. Library Quarterly, 63(3):318-351.
  20. Rinaldi, A. M. (2008). A content-based approach for document representation and retrieval. In Proc. of the 8th ACM DocEng 7808, pages 106-109, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  21. Saracevic, T. (1996). Relevance reconsidered. In Ingwersen, P. and Pors, N., editors, Proc. of CoLIS'96, pages 201-218. The Royal School of Librarianship.
  22. Swanson, D. (1986). Subjective versus objective relevance in bibliographic retrieval systems. Library Quarterly, 56(4):389-398.
  23. Vakkari, P. and Hakala, N. (2000). Changes in relevance criteria and problem stages in task performance. J. of Documentation, 56(5):389-398.
  24. Velarde, M. D., Fry, G., and Tveit, M. (2007). Health effects of viewing landscapes-landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4):199-212.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Cataldo A., Cutini V., Di Pinto V. and M. Rinaldi A. (2014). Subjectivity and Objectivity in Urban Knowledge Representation . In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval - Volume 1: KDIR, (IC3K 2014) ISBN 978-989-758-048-2, pages 411-417. DOI: 10.5220/0005152404110417


in Bibtex Style

@conference{kdir14,
author={Antonia Cataldo and Valerio Cutini and Valerio Di Pinto and Antonio M. Rinaldi},
title={Subjectivity and Objectivity in Urban Knowledge Representation},
booktitle={Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval - Volume 1: KDIR, (IC3K 2014)},
year={2014},
pages={411-417},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0005152404110417},
isbn={978-989-758-048-2},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval - Volume 1: KDIR, (IC3K 2014)
TI - Subjectivity and Objectivity in Urban Knowledge Representation
SN - 978-989-758-048-2
AU - Cataldo A.
AU - Cutini V.
AU - Di Pinto V.
AU - M. Rinaldi A.
PY - 2014
SP - 411
EP - 417
DO - 10.5220/0005152404110417