Carnap, Goguen, and the hyperontologies: Logical pluralism and heterogeneous structuring in ontology design [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Logica Universalis 4 (2):255-333 (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 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||Ontologies reasoning modularity logical pluralism combination techniques algebraic specification institution theory|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Peter M. Simons (1987). Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford University Press.
Jc Beall & Greg Restall (2005). Logical Pluralism. Oxford University Press.
Rudolf Carnap (1950). Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4 (11):20--40.
Terence Parsons (1980). Nonexistent Objects. Yale University Press.
Susan Haack (1978). Philosophy of Logics. Cambridge University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
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.
Paweł Garbacz (2007). Bity i byty. O pewnym mało znanym zastosowaniu ontologii. Filozofia Nauki 3 (59):121--140.
Daniel Pokrywczyński & Grant Malcolm (2014). Towards a Functional Approach to Modular Ontologies Using Institutions. Studia Logica 102 (1):117-143.
Barry Smith (2008). Ontology (Science). In Luciano Floridi (ed.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems. Blackwell 153--166.
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 Communications 13 (4):247–258.
Barry Smith, Werner Ceusters, Bert Klagges, Jacob Köhler, Anand Kuma, Jane Lomax, Chris Mungall, , Fabian Neuhaus, Alan Rector & Cornelius Rosse (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):27-57.
Barry Smith, Michael Ashburner, Cornelius Rosse, Jonathan Bard, William Bug, Werner Ceusters, Louis J. Goldberg, Karen Eilbeck, Amelia Ireland, Mungall Christopher J., Neocles Leontis & Others (2007). The OBO Foundry: Coordinated Evolution of Ontologies to Support Biomedical Data Integration. Nature Biotechnology 25 (11):1251-1255.
Added to index2010-11-17
Total downloads40 ( #108,474 of 1,934,425 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #145,801 of 1,934,425 )
How can I increase my downloads?