Towards ontological foundations for agent modeling concepts using UFO

Foundational ontologies provide the basic concepts upon which any domain-specific ontology is built. This paper presents a new foundational ontology, UFO, and shows how it can be used as a foundation of agent concepts and for evaluating agent-oriented modeling methods. UFO is derived from a synthesis of two other foundational ontologies, GFO/GOL and OntoClean/DOLCE. While their main areas of application are the natural sciences and linguistics/cognitive engineering, respectively, the main purpose of UFO is to provide a foundation for conceptual modeling, including agentoriented modeling

A formal theory of conceptual modeling universals

Conceptual Modeling is a discipline of great relevance to several areas in Computer Science. In a series of papers [1,2,3] we have been using the General Ontological Language (GOL) and its underlying upper level ontology, proposed in [4,5], to evaluate the ontological correctness of conceptual models and to develop guidelines for how the constructs of a modeling language (UML) should be used in conceptual modeling. In this paper, we focus on the modeling metaconcepts of classifiers and objects from an ontological point of view. We use a philosophically and psychologically well-founded theory of universals to propose a UML profile for Ontology Representation and Conceptual Modeling. The formal semantics of the proposed modeling elements is presented in a language of modal logics with quantification restricted to Sortal universals

Belnap's epistemic states and negation-as-failure

Generalizing Belnap's system of epistemic states [Bel77] we obtain the system of disjunctive factbases which is the paradigm for all other kinds of disjunctive knowledge bases. Disjunctive factbases capture the nonmonotonic reasoning based on paraminimal models. In the schema of a disjunctive factbase, certain predicates of the resp. domain are declared to be exact, i.e. two-valued, and in turn some of these exact predicates are declared to be subject to the Closed-World Assumption (CWA). Thus, we distinguish between three kinds of predicates: inexact predicates, exact predicates subject to the CWA, and exact predicates not subject to the CWA