An information systems ontology for the urban development domain

The aim of this thesis was to develop an ontology for the urban development domain based on application of Christopher Alexander’s generative code process of building living neighbourhoods. Research questions focus on (1) does application of the generative code lead to extraction of verifiable terms in the urban development domain, and (2) can these terms be used in the Basic Formal Ontology to develop the relations and hierarchies that define an ontology of urban development? A two-part methodology is applied to an old industrial case study site in Sydney called Alexandra Canal, where it is proposed (in a studio setting) to redevelop the area into a living neighbourhood. Part A develops a handbook for implementation of the generative code process to extract terms for regimentation of urban development information. This is applied in pilot and studio workshops with key stakeholders in the urban development process. Part B takes the outputs of Part A and applies methods for ontology creation using Basic Formal Ontology and Protégé. We attempt a proof of concept by applying various data analysis methods, terminological regimentation and, finally, by encoding universals and relations in Protégé. Results indicate that the process of applying the generative code produces verifiable terms that designate entities and relations in urban development. The Basic Formal Ontology procedure is used to develop these entities and relations into a taxonomy of terms and relations. The taxonomy was then encoded in Protégé to formalise the ontology in computer form to enable interrogation, generation and retrieval of data. Our proof of concept urban development ontology demonstrates that it can facilitate communication between information systems, stakeholders and professionals in the domain. Results highlight that Alexander’s generative code process can be used to extract terms that can be further developed into an urban development ontology. This provides urban ontologists with an alternative and more humanistic method based on the science of building living neighbourhoods. The results also have implications for urban design and architecture, as the methodology forces design aspects to be based on systematic interaction with key stakeholders, as opposed to the plethora of accepted urban design methods and practices