Orchestrating a Network of Mereo(topo)logical Theories

Parthood is used widely in ontologies across subject domains. Some modelling guidance can be gleaned from Ontology, yet it offers multiple mereological theories, and even more when combined with topology, i.e., mereotopology. To complicate the landscape, decidable languages put restrictions on the language features, so that only fragments of the mereo(topo)logical theories can be represented, yet during modelling, those full features may be needed to check correctness. We address these issues by specifying a structured network of theories formulated in multiple logics that are glued together by the various linking constructs of the Distributed Ontology Language, \DOL. For the KGEMT mereotopological theory and five sub-theories, together with the DL-based OWL species and first- and second-order logic, this network in \DOL orchestrates 28 ontologies. Further, we propose automated steps toward resolution of language feature conflicts when combining modules, availing of the new `OWL classifier' tool that pinpoints profile violations

Orchestrating a Network of Mereo(topo)logical Theories: An Abridged Report

Parthood is used widely in ontologies across subject domains, specified in a multitude of mereological theories, and even more when combined with topology. To complicate the landscape, decidable languages put restrictions on the language features, so that only fragments of the mereo(topo)logical theories can be represented, even though those full features may be needed to check correctness during modelling. We address these issues by specifying a structured network of theories formulated in multiple logics that are glued together by the various linking constructs of the Distributed Ontology Language, DOL. For the KGEMT mereotopology and its five sub-theories, together with the DL-based OWL species and first- and second-order logic, this network in DOL orchestrates 28 ontologies

Towards a Framework for Meaning Negotiation and Conflict Resolution in Ontology Authoring

Ontology authoring involves making choices about what subject domain knowledge to include. This may concern sorting out ontological differences as well as making choices of conflicting axioms due to limitations in the logic. Examples are different foundational ontologies in ontology matching and OWL 2 DL’s transitive object property versus qualified cardinality constraints. Such conflicts have to be resolved. However, there is currently only isolated and fragmented guidance for doing so, which therefore results in ad hoc decision-making. This work aims to ad-dress this by working towards a framework dealing with the various types of modeling conflicts through meaning negotiation and conflict resolution in a systematic way. The approach was evaluated with an actual case of domain knowledge usage in the context of epizootic disease outbreak

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

Toward a systematic conflict resolution framework for ontologies

Background The ontology authoring step in ontology development involves having to make choices about what subject domain knowledge to include. This may concern sorting out ontological differences and making choices between conflicting axioms due to limitations in the logic or the subject domain semantics. Examples are dealing with different foundational ontologies in ontology alignment and OWL 2 DL’s transitive object property versus a qualified cardinality constraint. Such conflicts have to be resolved somehow. However, only isolated and fragmented guidance for doing so is available, which therefore results in ad hoc decision-making that may not be the best choice or forgotten about later. Results This work aims to address this by taking steps towards a framework to deal with the various types of modeling conflicts through meaning negotiation and conflict resolution in a systematic way. It proposes an initial library of common conflicts, a conflict set, typical steps toward resolution, and the software availability and requirements needed for it. The approach was evaluated with an actual case of domain knowledge usage in the context of epizootic disease outbreak, being avian influenza, and running examples with COVID-19 ontologies. Conclusions The evaluation demonstrated the potential and feasibility of a conflict resolution framework for ontologies

Concepts, Frames and Cascades in Semantics, Cognition and Ontology

This open access book presents novel theoretical, empirical and experimental work exploring the nature of mental representations that support natural language production and understanding, and other manifestations of cognition. One fundamental question raised in the text is whether requisite knowledge structures can be adequately modeled by means of a uniform representational format, and if so, what exactly is its nature. Frames are a key topic covered which have had a strong impact on the exploration of knowledge representations in artificial intelligence, psychology and linguistics; cascades are a novel development in frame theory. Other key subject areas explored are: concepts and categorization, the experimental investigation of mental representation, as well as cognitive analysis in semantics. This book is of interest to students, researchers, and professionals working on cognition in the fields of linguistics, philosophy, and psychology