Carnap, Goguen, and the hyperontologies: Logical pluralism and heterogeneous structuring in ontology design
Logica Universalis 4 (2):255-333 (2010)
|Abstract||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 well-founded 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|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Euripidis N. Loukis (2007). An Ontology for G2g Collaboration in Public Policy Making, Implementation and Evaluation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (1):19-48.
Frixione Marcello & Lieto Antonio (2012). Representing Concepts in Formal Ontologies: Compositionality Vs. Typicality Effects. Logic and Logical Philosophy 21 (4):391-414.
Daniel Pokrywczyński & Grant Malcolm (forthcoming). Towards a Functional Approach to Modular Ontologies Using Institutions. Studia Logica:1-27.
Barry Smith (2008). Ontology (Science). In Formal Ontology in Information Systems.
Aleksandra Sojic & Oliver Kutz (2012). Open Biomedical Pluralism - Formalising Knowledge About Breast Cancer Phenotypes. Journal of Biomedical Sematics 3 (2):S3.
Adam Wyner (2008). An Ontology in Owl for Legal Case-Based Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (4):361-387.
Barbara Heller & Heinrich Herre (2004). Ontological Categories in GOL. Axiomathes 14 (1-3):57-76.
Thomas Bittner, Maureen Donnelly & Barry Smith (2004). Endurants and Perdurants in Directly Depicting Ontologies. AI Com¬Munications 13 (4):247–258.
Barry Smith (2005). Relations in Biomedical Ontologies. Genome Biology 6 (5):R46.
Pepijn R. S. Visser & Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon (1998). A Comparison of Four Ontologies for the Design of Legal Knowledge Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6 (1).
Barry Smith (2007). The OBO Foundry: Coordinated Evolution of Ontologies to Support Biomedical Data Integration. Nature Biotechnology 25 (11):1251-1255.
Janna Hastings, Werner Ceusters, Mark Jensen, Kevin Mulligan & Barry Smith (2012). Representing Mental Functioning: Ontologies for Mental Health and Disease. In Towards an Ontology of Mental Functioning (ICBO Workshop), Proceeedings of the Third International Conference on Biomedical Ontology.
Added to index2010-11-17
Total downloads14 ( #83,078 of 549,065 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,065 )
How can I increase my downloads?