A comparative illustration of foundational ontologies : BORO and UFO

This paper investigates the differences that exist between a 3D and a 4D ontology. We examine these differences by comparing both ontologies through the metaphysical choices each ontology makes and explore the composing characteristics that define them. More specifically, the differences between the ontologies were illustrated through several modeling fragments that were derived from a modeling case presented at the 5thOntoCom workshop. Each of these modeling fragments focused on the metaphysical choices that the ontologies make –Essence and Identity, Relationships and Time. These comparisons highlighted the different ontological approaches and structures that exist between the ontologies. Moreover, depending on the ontology, the resulting conceptual model could differ substantially, confirming the impact and importance of the choice of a certain ontology. The observed differences between both ontologies eventually led us to formulate three discussion points that question the applicability of certain metaphysical choices in certain circumstances, and that can serve as a basis for future discussion or future research studies in the domain of ODCM

Relational contexts and conceptual model clustering

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the use of reference conceptual models to capture information about complex and sensitive business domains (e.g., finance, healthcare, space). These models play a fundamental role in different types of critical semantic interoperability tasks. Therefore, it is essential that domain experts are able to understand and reason with their content. In other words, it is important for these reference conceptual models to be cognitively tractable. This paper contributes to this goal by proposing a model clustering technique that leverages the rich semantics of ontology-driven conceptual models (ODCM). In particular, the technique employs the notion of Relational Context to guide automated model breakdown. Such Relational Contexts capture all the information needed for understanding entities “qua players of roles” in the scope of an objectified (reified) relationship (relator)

An Ontological Account of the Action Theory of Economic Exchanges

In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in thedevelopment of ontologically well-founded conceptual models for Information Systems in areas such as Service Management, Accounting Information Systems and Financial Reporting. Economic exchanges are central phenomena in these areas. For this reason, they occupy a prominent position in modelling frameworks such as the REA (Resource-EventAction) ISO Standard as well as the FIBO (Financial Industry BusinessOntology). In this paper, we begin a well-founded ontological analysisof economic exchanges inspired by a recent ontological view on the nature of economic transactions. According to this view, what counts asan economic transaction is based on an agreement on the actions thatthe agents are committed to perform. The agreement is in turn based on convergent preferences about the course of action to bring about. This view enables a unified treatment of economic exchanges, regardless the object of the transaction, and complies with the view that all economictransactions are about services. In this paper, we start developing our analysis in the framework of the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO)

Comparing digital platform types in the platform economy

In the domain of the platform economy we identified two gaps in the current literature. First the lack of a shared conceptualization of digital platform types. We solve this issue with a taxonomy giving an overview of digital platform attributes, with attribute values expressing the possible variations between platforms depending on their type. These attributes and attribute values are then used in the typology giving a clear overview of all the digital platform types and how they are related to each other. The second gap is the lack of knowledge concerning the software functionalities of digital platforms. We contribute to this with a proposal of a reference ontology allowing for a better communication between developers and other stakeholders. Our envisioned ontology can be used as a common language that all platform stakeholders can understand to facilitate future research and support ontology-driven development of digital platforms