Methodological Principles for Structuring an "Ontology (original) (raw)
Related papers
Ontology in Knowledge Representation
The categorization of entities into classes such as object, plant, animal, or human reflects ontological structure. Ontological structure can be represented by inheritance trees which are orthogonal to more conventional "isa" inheritance trees. Given ontological structure we can define paradigmatic transitions, such as that from caterpillar to butterfly, and ontological transitions, such as that from living to dead. These concepts are exemplified with examples from everyday knowledge and from the world of computer integrated manufacturing. A final section discusses the implications of ontological representation for representation of scientific concepts.
Logica Universalis, 2010
This paper addresses questions of universality related to ontological engineering, namely aims at substantiating (negative) answers to the following three basic questions: (i) Is there a 'universal ontology' ?, (ii) Is there a 'universal formal ontology language' ?, and (iii) Is there a universally applicable 'mode of reasoning' for formal ontologies? To support our answers in a principled way, we present a general framework for the design of formal ontologies resting on two main principles: firstly, we endorse Rudolf Carnap's principle of logical tolerance by giving central stage to the concept of logical heterogeneity, i.e. the use of a plurality of logical languages within one ontology design. Secondly, to structure and combine heterogeneous ontologies in a semantically wellfounded way, we base our work on abstract model theory in the form of institutional semantics, as forcefully put forward by Joseph Goguen and Rod Burstall. In particular, we employ the structuring mechanisms of the heterogeneous algebraic specification language HetCasl for defining a general concept of heterogeneous, distributed, highly modular and structured ontologies, called hyperontologies. Moreover, we distinguish, on a structural and semantic level, several different kinds of combining and aligning heterogeneous ontologies, namely integration, connection, and refinement. We show how the notion of heterogeneous refinement can be used to provide both a general notion of sub-ontology as well as a notion of heterogeneous equivalence of ontologies, and finally sketch how different modes of reasoning over ontologies are related to these different structuring aspects.
The construction of ontological categories
Australasian Journal of Philosophy Vol. 82, No. 4, pp. 595–620; December 2004, 2004
I describe an account of ontological categories which does justice to the facts that not all categories are ontological categories and that ontological categories can stand in containment relations. The account sorts objects into different categories in the same way in which grammar sorts expressions. It then identifies the ontological categories with those which play a certain role in the systematization of collections of categories. The paper concludes by noting that on my account what ontological categories there are is partially interest-relative, and that furthermore no object can belong essentially to its ontological category.
We introduce a new theory of concepts conceived as structured abstract entities. The theory is based on the key notion of Transparent Intensional Logic (TIL), known as TIL construction. The rich procedural semantics of TIL makes it possible to explicitly state all the semantically salient features of natural language expressions. We illustrate how to make use of TIL theory of concepts in distinguishing analytical and empirical concepts, particular kinds of necessities, and for rigorous specification of requisite relations between intensions. Finally, ontology is characterised as a stable part of the system that should play an integrating role. We show how to make use of this rich theory in specification of the content of ontologies in a multi-agent system.
Chapter 8: Categories: The Top-Level Ontology
An Introduction, 2000
The task of ontology is to represent reality or, rather, to support the sciences in their representation of reality. In the last chapter, the reader became acquainted with an important means of doing so, namely: the technique of classification. But, in any classification, what are the very first kinds? What should the top level look like? In this chapter, I attempt to answer these questions. First, I review some suggestions for top-level ontologies with the help of the criteria established in Chapter 7 (section 1). From the point of view of the philosophical tradition of ontology, the question of a top-level ontology is tantamount to the question of the most basic categories. In order to develop some alternative suggestions, the nature of categories must first be addressed. To this end, I appeal to the philosopher whose ideas are pivotal in influencing our current understanding of ontology: Aristotle (section 2). Starting from Aristotle's list of categories (section 3), I go on to discuss three dichotomies which I recommend as candidates for the seminal principles of a top-level ontology, namely: dependent versus independent entities (section 4), continuants versus occurrents (section 5), and universals versus particulars (section 6). Finally, I discuss some categories of more complex entities like states of affairs, sets, and natural classes (section 7).