An Analysis of Commitments in Ontology Language Design

Multiple ontology languages have been developed over the years, which brings afore two key components: how to select the appropriate language for the task at hand and language design itself. This engineering step entails examining the ontological ‘commitments’ embedded into the language, which, in turn, demands for an insight into what the effects of philosophical viewpoints may be on the design of a representation language. But what are the sort of commitments one should be able to choose from that have an underlying philosophical point of view, and which philosophical stances have a knock-on effect on the specification or selection of an ontology language? In this paper, we provide a first step towards answering these questions. We identify and analyse ontological commitments embedded in logics, or that could be, and show that they have been taken in well-known ontology languages. This contributes to reflecting on the language as enabler or inhibitor to formally characterising an ontology or an ontological investigation, as well as the design of new ontology languages following the proposed design process.

[1]  Enrico Franconi,et al.  A Temporal Description Logic for Reasoning over Conceptual Schemas and Queries , 2002, JELIA.

[2]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  An Overview of OntoClean , 2004, Handbook on Ontologies.

[3]  Pablo R. Fillottrani,et al.  Evidence-Based Languages for Conceptual Data Modelling Profiles , 2015, ADBIS.

[4]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Formal Ontology and Information Systems , 1998 .

[5]  Joop Leo,et al.  MODELING RELATIONS , 2008, J. Philos. Log..

[6]  Peretz Shoval,et al.  Entity-Relationship and Object-Oriented Data Modeling-an Experimental Comparison of Design Quality , 1997, Data Knowl. Eng..

[7]  Bernardo Cuenca Grau,et al.  OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Profiles , 2009 .

[8]  Sybren de Kinderen,et al.  Requirements engineering for the design of conceptual modeling languages , 2015, Appl. Ontology.

[9]  Sean Bechhofer,et al.  SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference , 2009 .

[10]  Mark Lycett,et al.  Enterprise Data Modelling : Developing an Ontology-Based Framework for the Shell Downstream Business , 2006 .

[11]  C. Maria Keet,et al.  A Model for Verbalising Relations with Roles in Multiple Languages , 2016, EKAW.

[12]  Umberto Straccia,et al.  Managing uncertainty and vagueness in description logics for the Semantic Web , 2008, J. Web Semant..

[13]  Tania Tudorache,et al.  Ontology engineering: Current state, challenges, and future directions , 2020, Semantic Web.

[14]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Identification Constraints and Functional Dependencies in Description Logics , 2001, IJCAI.

[15]  Ulrich Frank,et al.  Domain-Specific Modeling Languages: Requirements Analysis and Design Guidelines , 2013, Domain Engineering, Product Lines, Languages, and Conceptual Models.

[16]  Ronald J. Brachman,et al.  An Overview of the KL-ONE Knowledge Representation System , 1985, Cogn. Sci..

[17]  Euripides G. M. Petrakis,et al.  Temporal representation and reasoning in OWL 2 , 2017, Semantic Web.

[18]  Steffen Staab,et al.  What Is an Ontology? , 2009, Handbook on Ontologies.

[19]  Giancarlo Guizzardi,et al.  On the Representation of Quantities and their Parts in Conceptual Modeling , 2010, FOIS.

[20]  Gabor Karsai,et al.  Design Guidelines for Domain Specific Languages , 2014, ArXiv.

[21]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Dwq : Esprit Long Term Research Project, No 22469 on the Decidability of Query Containment under Constraints on the Decidability of Query Containment under Constraints , 2022 .

[22]  Eleanor Rosch,et al.  Principles of Categorization , 1978 .

[23]  C. Maria Keet.  Relating Some Stuff to Other Stuff , 2016, EKAW.

[24]  C. Maria Keet.  Positionalism of Relations and Its Consequences for Fact-Oriented Modelling , 2009, OTM Workshops.

[25]  Pablo R. Fillottrani,et al.  An Analysis and Characterisation of Publicly Available Conceptual Models , 2015, ER.

[26]  Boris Motik,et al.  OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: structural specification and functional-style syntax , 2008 .

[27]  M. Ashburner,et al.  Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology , 2000, Nature Genetics.

[28]  Andrzej Skowron,et al.  Rudiments of rough sets , 2007, Inf. Sci..

[29]  David Toman,et al.  On Adding Inverse Features to the Description Logic CFD∀nc , 2014, PRICAI.

[30]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a Web Ontology Language , 2003, J. Web Semant..

[31]  Joop Leo.  Coordinate-Free Logic , 2016, Rev. Symb. Log..

[32]  Daniel J. Hill,et al.  On Neutral Relations , 2012 .

[33]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Open Problems with Part-Whole Relations , 1996, Description Logics.

[34]  Maureen Donnelly,et al.  Summation relations and portions of stuff , 2009 .

[35]  J. Prinz,et al.  Vagueness, Language, and Ontology , 1998 .

[36]  C. Maria Keet,et al.  Orchestrating a Network of Mereo(topo)logical Theories , 2017, K-CAP.

[37]  C. Allen,et al.  Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2011 .