Computer ontology languages aggregate a number of properties that can be used to model knowledge for machine consumption. These languages are increasingly playing a role in gatekeeping the conveyance and dissemination of knowledge. This article presents a cultural analysis of owl:sameas—a property in a computer ontology language that seeks to formalize representations of identity and sameness in online databases. In this article, I examine the ‘re-formalizing practices’ of the community of practitioners that revisited the specifications for owl:sameas after the standard was widely put to use in not so standard ways. Re-formalizing practices refer to the social activities that designers engage as they confront the contingency and mutability of formal representations. I argue that designers engaging re-formalizing practices can at times buckle down on the stability of certain logical properties even while appearing to make knowledge modeling more fluid; at other times, re-formalizing practices can invite more freeplay in a modeling practice, decentering the authors of ontology languages as central to meaning-making. This work furthers understanding of, not only how ontology languages delimit representational affordances, but also how social understandings of the meaning and appropriate use of their properties are enacted and iterate over time.
AdamA. (1998). Artificial knowing: Gender and the thinking machine. Routledge.
3.
AkrichM. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In BijkerW. (Ed.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). MIT Press.
AllhutterD. (2019). Of “working ontologists” and “high-Quality human components”. The politics of semantic infrastructures. In VertesiJ.RibesD. (Eds.), DigitalSTS: A field guide for science & technology studies (pp. 326–334). Princeton University Press.
6.
BarryA. (2001). Political machines: Governing a technological society. A&C Black.
7.
Berners-LeeT.HendlerJ.LassilaO. (2001). The Semantic Web. Scientific American, 284(5), 29–37.
8.
BowersJ. (1992). The politics of formalism. In LeaM. (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 232–261). Harvester Wheatsheaf.
9.
BowkerG. C.StarS. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT Press.
BrownS. (2022). Same difference: Identity and diversity in linked open cultural data. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 16(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3366/ijhac.2022.0273
12.
BucholtzM.SkapoulliE.BarnwellB.LeeJ.-E. J. (2011). Entextualized humor in the formation of scientist identities among U.S. undergraduates. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 42(3), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1492.2011.01126.x
13.
ButlerJ. (2006). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity (1st ed.). Routledge.
DeanM.SchreiberG.BechhoferS.van HarmelenF.HendlerJ.HorrocksI.McGuinnessD. L.Patel-SchneiderP.SteinL. A. (2004, February10). OWL Web Ontology Language reference. W3C. https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
16.
DeleuzeG. (1995). Difference and repetition (PattonP., Trans.; Revised ed.). Columbia University Press.
17.
DerridaJ. (1970). Structure, sign, and play in the discourse of the human sciences. In MackseyR.DonatoE. (Eds.), The languages of criticism and the sciences of man: The structuralist controversy (pp. 247–265). Johns Hopkins University Press.
18.
DingL.ShinavierJ.FininT.McGuinnessD. L. (2010). owl:sameAs and Linked Data: An empirical study. Web Science Conference.
EdwardsP. (1999). Global climate science, uncertainty and politics: Data-laden models, model-filtered data. Science as Culture, 8(4), 437–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505439909526558
21.
EpsteinS. (2021). Cultivated co-production: Sexual health, human rights, and the revision of the ICD. Social Studies of Science, 51(5), 657–682. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127211014283
22.
FleckL. (1981). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. University of Chicago Press.
23.
FordH.GrahamM. (2016). Semantic cities: Coded geopolitics and the rise of the Semantic Web. In KitchinR.PerngS.-Y. (Eds.), Code and the city (pp. 200–214). Routledge.
24.
ForsytheD. (2001). Studying those who study us: An anthropologist in the world of artificial intelligence. Stanford University Press.
25.
GilbertG. N.MulkayM. (1984). Opening Pandora’s Box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge University Press.
26.
GroszE. (2011). Becoming undone: Darwinian reflections on life, politics, and art. Duke University Press.
HalpinH.HayesP. J.McCuskerJ. P.McGuinnessD. L.ThompsonH. S. (2010). When owl:sameAs isn’t the same: An analysis of identity in Linked Data. In Patel-SchneiderP. F.PanY.HitzlerP.MikaP.ZhangL.PanJ. Z.HorrocksI.GlimmB. (Eds.), The Semantic Web—ISWC 2010 (pp. 305–320). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17746-0_20
29.
HalpinH.HayesP. J.ThompsonH. S. (2015). When owl:sameAs isn’t the same redux: Towards a theory of identity, context, and inference on the Semantic Web. In ChristiansenH.StojanovicI.PapadopoulosG. A. (Eds.), Modeling and using context (pp. 47–60). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25591-0_4
HayesP. J.HalpinH. (2008). In defense of ambiguity. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 4(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.4018/jswis.2008040101
HoehndorfR.Queralt-RosinachN. (2017). Data Science and symbolic AI: Synergies, challenges and opportunities. Data Science, 1(1–2), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.3233/DS-170004
HorrocksI.Patel-SchneiderP. F.van HarmelenF. (2003). From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a Web Ontology Language. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 1(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2003.07.001
IliadisA. (2019). The Tower of Babel problem: Making data make sense with Basic Formal Ontology. Online Information Review, 43(6), 1021–1045. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-07-2018-0210
41.
IliadisA. (2023). Semantic media: Mapping meaning on the internet. Polity.
42.
IliadisA.AckerA.StevensW.KavakliS. B. (2023). One schema to rule them all: How Schema.org models the world of search. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 76(2), 460–523. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24744
43.
IliadisA.FordH. (2023). Fast facts: Platforms from personalization to centralization. Social Media + Society, 9(3), Article 20563051231195546. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231195546
44.
IrigarayL. (1985). This sex which is not one. Cornell University Press.
LassilaO.van HarmelenF.HorrocksI.HendlerJ.McGuinnessD. L. (2000). The semantic Web and its languages. IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications, 15(6), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1109/5254.895864
47.
LeonelliS. (2010). Packaging small fact for re-use: Databases in model organism biology. In HowlettP.MorganM. S. (Eds.), How well do facts travel?: The dissemination of reliable knowledge (pp. 325–348). Cambridge University Press.
48.
LeonelliS. (2012). When humans are the exception: Cross-species databases at the interface of biological and clinical research. Social Studies of Science, 42(2), 214–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711436265
McGuinnessD. L. (2001). Description logics emerge from Ivory Towers [Conference session]. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics, Stanford, CA, pp. 201–203.
51.
McGuinnessD. L.FikesR.HendlerJ.SteinL. A. (2002). DAML+OIL: An ontology language for the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 17(5), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2002.1039835
52.
MoneaA. (2016). The graphing of difference: Numerical mediation and the case of Google’s Knowledge Graph. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 16(5), 452–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708616655763
PoirierL. (2017, June). A turn for the scruffy: An ethnographic study of semantic web architecture [Conference session]. WebSci ’17, Troy, NY. https://doi.org/10.1145/3091478.3091505
56.
PoirierL. (2019). Making the web meaningful: A history of web semantics. In BrüggerN.MilliganI. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of web history (pp. 256–269). Sage. https://books.google.com/books?id=le20swEACAAJ
57.
RibesD.BowkerG. C. (2009). Between meaning and machine: Learning to represent the knowledge of communities. Information and Organization, 19(4), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2009.04.001
RieschH.VrikkiP.StephensN.LewisJ.MartinO. (2021). ‘A moment of science, please’: Activism, community, and humor at the march for science. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 41(2–3), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/02704676211042252
SeaverN. (2017). Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society, 4(2), Article 2053951717738104. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717738104
62.
SedgwickE. K. (1985). Between men: English literature and male homosocial desire. Columbia University Press.
63.
SherronC. (2000). Constructing common sense. In BalkaE.SmithR. (Eds.), Women, work and computerization: Charting a course to the future (pp. 111–118). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35509-2_14
64.
Simis-WilkinsonM.MaddenH.LassenD.SuL. Y.-F.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A. (2018). Scientists joking on social media: An empirical analysis of #overlyhonestmethods. Science Communication, 40(3), 314–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018766557
StarS. L. (1995). The politics of formal representations: Wizards, gurus, and organizational complexity. In StarS. L. (Ed.), Ecologies of knowledge: Work and politics in science and technology (p. 88). State University of New York Press.
WallerV. (2016). Making knowledge machine-processable: Some implications of general semantic search. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(10), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1183710
XiongH.WangZ.LiX.BianJ.XieZ.MumtazS.Al-DulaimiA.BarnesL. E. (2024). Converging paradigms: The synergy of symbolic and connectionist AI in LLM-empowered autonomous agents. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.08516
