Skip to main content

Abstract

We distinguish between ontological architecture and ontology architecture, though they are closely related. Ontology architecture is emerging as a distinct discipline in ontology engineering – as an ontology development and deployment structure and methodology (Fernandéz et al., 1997). It necessarily also includes aspects of what is sometimes termed ontology lifecycle management (Andersen et al., 2006). In fact, ontology architecture can be considered to encompass ontology lifecycle management because the former lays out a general framework for the development, deployment, and maintenance of ontologies (which is the focus of lifecycle management), but also includes the interaction of applications and services that use ontologies, and an ontology tool and service infrastructure to support these. Ontological architecture is the architecture that is used to structure the ontologies that are employed by ontology architecture. As such, it addresses the levels of ontologies required (foundational, upper, middle, utility, reference, domain, and sub-domain ontologies), and mathematical, logical, and engineering constructs used to modularize ontologies in a large ontological space. This chapter focuses on ontological architecture, but it must be understood to underpin ontology architecture if only to ground/situate and enable the latter. Both kinds of architecture are relevant to ontology engineering, but we cannot address ontology architecture here until the very last section, when we look ahead. Instead, we focus on ontological architecture, which as it turns out, is a large enough topic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Semy et al. (2004, p. 8), also Chapter 1 by Poli and Obrst, this volume.

  2. 2.

    We differentiate and define term and concept in Table 2.1, below.

  3. 3.

    There is, however, a vast literature on the notion of concept in philosophy, cognitive science/psychology, and linguistics. Often in cognitive science/psychology, a concept is considered to be mental particular, having a structured mental representation of a certain type (Margolis and Laurence, 1999b, p. 5–6). However, in philosophy, a concept is considered an abstract entity, signifying a general characterizing idea or universal which acts as a category for instances (individuals in logic, particulars in metaphysics and philosophical ontology) (Smith, 2004). Even in the philosophical literature, the notion of concept will vary according to philosophical stance, i.e., according to whether the adherent to the particular notion is an idealist, nominalist, conceptualist, or realist, or some combination or refraction of those (Poli, 2010). For example, some will consider a concept to be simply a placeholder for a real world entity, either a universal or a particular; example: Joe Montana (a former USA football quarterback) or Winston Churchill (a former UK prime minister) as concepts. That is, the mental placeholder or idea can be about anything. This notion of concept is a surrogate for anything that a philosophical or many linguistic theories may opine. Often, therefore (and this is our view here), concepts are best understood as conceptions, a term which has perhaps less technical baggage, insofar as conception emphasizes that we are talking about a mental representation which may or may not be reified as a concept, perhaps a stronger notion. But for purposes of simplicity, we use the term concept in this chapter to mean roughly an abstract entity signifying a general characterizing idea or universal which acts as a category for instances.

  4. 4.

    The subsumption relation is typically defined to be the subset relation, i.e., intuitively a class is similar to a set, and the instances of that class are similar to elements of the set. A more general class (set), therefore, like mammal will contain a subclass (subset) of primate, among whose instances (elements) will be specific humans like Ralph Waldo Emerson. Concept subsumption as an ontology reasoning problem means that “given an ontology O and two classes A, B, verify whether the interpretation of A is a subset of the interpretation of B in every model of O” (OWL 1.1. http://www.w3.org/Submission/owl11-tractable/).

  5. 5.

    There are both lower levels of interoperability and higher levels. Lower levels include logical and physical accessibility and connectivity interoperability, e.g., having two information sources on the communication network, with network addresses known by those who might wish to access those sources. A higher level might be pragmatic interoperability (intending a formal pragmatics account), which factors in the intent of the represented semantics.

  6. 6.

    6“Recall is like throwing a big fishing net into the pond. You may be sure to get all the trout, but you’ve probably also pulled up a lot of grouper, bass, and salmon, too. Precision is like going spear fishing. You’ll be pretty sure to ONLY get trout, but you’ll no doubt miss a lot of them, too.”

    – Jim Robertson, http://www-ec.njit.edu/∼robertso/infosci/recall-precision.html

  7. 7.

    Standard Upper Ontology (SUO) Working Group Website, http://suo.ieee.org/.

  8. 8.

    OpenCyc Website, http://www.opencyc.org/.

  9. 9.

    Another choice we will not investigate here is that between presentism and eternalism (Partridge, 2002). Presentism argues that time is real; eternalism that time is not real, that entities change but their properties do not change over time. Presentism typically goes with endurantism; eternalism goes with perdurantism.

  10. 10.

    Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) Website. http://www.ontologyportal.org/.

  11. 11.

    IEEE Standard Upper Ontology. http://suo.ieee.org/.

  12. 12.

    WonderWeb Website. http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org/objectives.shtml. Completed, July 2004.

  13. 13.

    Upper Cyc. http://www.cyc.com/cycdoc/vocab/vocab-toc.html.

  14. 14.

    Descriptive Ontology for Linguistic and Cognitive Engineering (DOLCE) Website. http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html.

  15. 15.

    Upper Ontology Summit, Ontolog Forum, 2006. http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgibin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit.

  16. 16.

    Portions of this section are adapted from Semy, Pulvermacher, Obrst (2005), pp. 5-13.

  17. 17.

    Common Logic. http://cl.tamu.edu/.

  18. 18.

    Adapted from Herre and Loeb (2005).

  19. 19.

    So, the theories are propositional theories here, for purposes of simplicity, but they should be understood as being formed from FOL or higher-order logical formulae, with the additional understanding that fully saturated (with instantiated, non-variable, i.e., ground terms) FOL or higher-order formulae are propositions.

  20. 20.

    We use propositions here, but the general case is formulae.

  21. 21.

    For further discussion of LMS, see Obrst et al. (1999) on which this current discussion is based.

  22. 22.

    Interoperable Knowledge Representation for Intelligence Support (IKRIS). 2006. http://nrrc.mitre.org/NRRC/Docs_Data/ikris.

  23. 23.

    What’s in Cyc? http://www.cyc.com/cyc/technology/whatiscyc_dir/whatsincyc.

  24. 24.

    Developing Ontology-Grounded Methods and Applications (DOGMA); a research initiative of the Free University of Brussels, Semantic Technologies and Applications Lab (VUB STARLab). http://www.starlab.vub.ac.be/website/.

  25. 25.

    Information Flow Framework. http://suo.ieee.org/IFF/. See also: http://www.ontologos.org/IFF/IFF.html.

  26. 26.

    IEEE Standard Upper Ontology. http://suo.ieee.org/.

  27. 27.

    http://www.ontologos.org/IFF/IFF.html.

  28. 28.

    Originally, Knowledge Interchange Format (KIF) Specification (draft proposed American National Standard [dpANS] NCITS.T2/98-004: http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html. However, KIF has been superseded by Common Logic, which includes a KIF-like instantiation called CLIF, and is now an ISO standard.

References

  • Andersen, B., R. Kohl, J. Williams. 2006. Ontology lifecycle management. Ontology Works, Inc. Version 1.0. Oct 14, 2005. Ontologyworks.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bao, J., and V.G. Honavar. 2006. Divide and conquer semantic web with modular ontologies - A brief review of modular ontology language formalisms. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Modular Ontologies, WoMO’06, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 232. eds. H. Haas, S. Kutz, and A. Tamilin, 5 Nov 2006, Athens, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, M., and C. Wells. 1999. Category theory for computing science, 3rd edn. Montreal, QC: Les publications Centre de recherches mathématiques.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, J. 1998. Information and impossibilities. Manuscript. http://www.phil.indiana.edu/∼barwise/

  • Barwise, J., and J. Seligman. 1997. Information flow: The logic of distributed systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, J., and J. Perry. 1983. Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basic Formal Ontology (BFO): http://www.ifomis.uni-saarland.de/bfo

  • Basin, D., M.D. Agostino, D. Gabbay, S. Matthews, and L. Viganò, eds. 2000. Labelled Deduction, 107–134, Scotland, UK: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechhofer, S., F. van Harmelen, J. Hendler, I. Horrocks, D.L. McGuinness, P.F. Patel-Schneider, and L>A. Stein. 2004. OWL web ontology language reference. W3C recommendation. 10 Feb 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/

  • Bittner, T., and B. Smith. 2001. Granular partitions and vagueness. In Formal ontology and information systems, eds. C. Welty, and B. Smith, 309–321. New York, NY: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bittner, T., and B. Smith. 2003. Endurants and perdurants in directly depicting ontologies. Draft. http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/EPDDO.pdf

  • Blackburn, P. 1999. Internalizing labelled deduction. In Proceedings of Hylo’99, First International Workshop on Hybrid Logics. 13 July 1999, Saarbrücken, Germany. Published in 2000. Journal of Logic and Computation 10(1):137–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, P., R.V. Guha, and W. Pratt. 1992. Microtheories: An ontological engineer’s guide. Technical report Cyc-050-92, 5 Mar 1992, Cycorps, Austin, TX. http://www.cyc.com/tech-reports/cyc-050-92/cyc-050-92.html

  • Bouquet, P., J. Euzenat, C. Ghidini, D.L. McGuinness, L. Serafini, P. Shvaiko, and H. Wache, eds. 2007. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Contexts and Ontologies: Representation and Reasoning (C&O:RR). Collocated with the 6th International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modelling and Using Context (CONTEXT-2007) Roskilde, Denmark, 21 Aug. http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-298/

  • Bouquet, P., F. Giunchiglia, F. Van Harmelen, L. Serafini, and H. Stuckenschmidt. 2003. C-OWL: Contextualizing ontologies. 2nd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2003), eds. D. Fensel, K.P. Sycara, and J. Mylopoulos, 164–179. Sanibel Island, FL, 20–23 Oct 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brézillon, P., and M. Cavalcanti. 1997. Modeling and Using Context: Report on the First International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT-97, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil on 4–6 Feb 1997. The Knowledge Engineering Review 12(4):1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckland, M.K., and F. Gey. 1994. The relationship between recall and precision. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45(1):12–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buvač, S., V. Buvač, and I.A. Mason. 1995. Metamathematics of contexts. Fundamenta Informaticae 23(3):149–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buvač, S. 1996. Resolving lexical ambiguity using a formal theory of context. In Semantic ambiguity and underspecification. CSLI Lecture Notes, Center for Studies in Language and Information, Stanford, CA, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buvač, S, ed. 1996. Proc AAAI-95 Fall Symposium on Formalizing Context. http://www-formal.stanford.edu:80/buvac/95-context-symposium

  • Casati, R., and A.C. Varzi. 1999. Parts and places: The structures of spatial representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheikes, B. 2006. MITRE Support to IKRIS, Final Report. MITRE Technical Report MTR060158, 5 Dec 2006. http://nrrc.mitre.org/NRRC/Docs_Data/ikris/MITRE_IKRIS_Final_Report_05Dec06.doc

  • CMMI® for Development, Version 1.2. CMMI-DEV, V1.2. CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008. ESC-TR-2006-008. CMMI Product Team, Aug 2006. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/models/model-v12-components-word.html

  • Colomb, R.M. 2002. Use of Upper Ontologies for Interoperation of Information Systems: A Tutorial, Technical Report 20/02 ISIB-CNR, Padova, Italy, Nov 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Common Logic. http://cl.tamu.edu/

  • Cuenca-Grau, B., V. Honavar, and A. Schlicht, F. Wolter. 2007. Second International Workshop on Modular Ontologies. 28 Oct 2007. Whistler, BC. http://webrum.uni-mannheim.de/math/lski/WoMO07/

  • Cycorp, Inc.: The CYC Technology. http://www.cyc.com/tech.html

  • Daconta, M., L. Obrst, and K. Smith. 2003. The semantic web: The future of XML, web services, and knowledge management. New York, NY: John Wiley, June 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davey, B.A., and H.A. Priestley. 1991. Introduction to lattices and order. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Degen, W., B. Heller, H. Herre, and B. Smith. 2001. GOL: A general ontological language. In Guarino, Welty, Smith, 34–46. FOIS 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Leenheer, P. 2004. Revising and Managing Multiple Ontology Versions in a Possible Worlds Setting. In Proc. of On The Move to Meaningful Internet Systems Ph.D. Symposium (OTM 2004) (Agia Napa, Cyprus), LNCS 3292, 798–818. Collega Park, MD: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Leenheer, P. and T. Mens. (2007). Ontology evolution: state of the art and future directions. In Ontology management for the semantic web, semantic web services, and business applications, from semantic web and beyond: Computing for human experience, eds. M. Hepp, P. De Leenheer, A. de Moor, and Y. Sure. Heidelberg, Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Leenheer, P., A. de Moor, and R. Meersman. (2007). Context dependency management in ontology engineering: A formal approach. Journal on data semantics VIII, LNCS 4380,26–56. New York, NY: Springer.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Descriptive Ontology for Linguistic and Cognitive Engineering (DOLCE) Website. http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html

  • Dumontier, M., and N. Villanueva-Rosales. 2007. Three-layer OWL ontology design. Second International Workshop on Modular Ontologies. 28 Oct 2007. Whistler, BC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Euzenat, J., A. Zimmermann, and F. Freitas. 2007. Alignment-based modules for encapsulating ontologies. Second International Workshop on Modular Ontologies. 28 Oct 2007. Whistler, BC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, W.M. 2000. An infrastructure for intertheory reasoning. In Automated Deduction--CADE-17, ed. D. McAllester, 115–131. LNCS, vol. 1831. http://imps.mcmaster.ca/doc/intertheory.pdf

  • Farmer, W.M. 1996. Perspective switching using theories and interpretations. In Intelligent Systems: A Semiotic Perspective, eds. J. Albus, A. Meystel, and R. Quintero, 206–207. Vol. I, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 20–23 Oct 1996. Abstract.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, W.M., J.D. Guttman, and F.J. Thayer. 1992. Little theories. In Automated Deduction--CADE-11, LNCS, vol. 607, ed. D. Kapur, 567–581. http://imps.mcmaster.ca/doc/major-imps-papers.html

  • Fernández, M. 1999. Overview of methodologies for building ontologies. Workshop on Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods: Lessons Learned and Future Trends. (IJCAI99). Aug 1999. http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-18/4-fernandez.pdf

  • Fernandéz, M., A. Gómez-Pérez, and N. Juristo. 1997. METHONTOLOGY: From ontological art to ontological engineering. Workshop on ontological engineering. AAAI Spring Symposium Series. AAAI-97, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fikes, R., C. Welty. 2006. Interoperable knowledge representation for intelligence support (IKRIS). Advanced research and development activity (ARDA)/disruptive technology office (DTO). Final briefing, Nov 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabbay, D. 1996. Labelled deductive systems, principles and applications. Vol 1: Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganter, B., and R. Wille. 1996. Formal concept analysis: Mathematical foundations. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gašević, D., D. Djurić, and V. Devedžić. 2006. Model driven architecture and ontology development. Berlin Heidelberg, New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giunchiglia, F., P. Bouquet. 1997. Introduction to contextual reasoning: An artificial intelligence perspective. Istituto per la Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica (IRST), Trento, Italy, Technical report 9705–19, May 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giunchiglia, F., and P. Bouquet. 1998. A Context-Based Framework for Mental Representation. Istituto per la Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica (IRST), Trento, Italy, Technical report 9807-02, July 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giunchiglia, F., and C. Ghidini. 1998. Local models semantics, or contextual reasoning = locality + compatibility. In Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’98), eds. A. Cohn, L. Schubert, and S. Shapiro, 282–289. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference, Trento, Italy, 2–5 June 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goguen, J., and G. Rosu. 2002. Institution morphisms. Formal Aspects Of Computing 13:274–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goguen, J.A. 1991. A categorical manifesto. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 1:49–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goguen, J.A., and R.M. Burstall. M. 1992. Institutions: Abstract model theory for specification and programming. Journal of the ACM 39:95–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goguen, J. 2006a. Institutions. http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/∼goguen/projs/inst.html

  • Goguen, J. 2006b. Information integration in institutions. For jon barwise memorial volume, ed. L. Moss, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarino, N, ed. 1998. In Formal ontology in information systems. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Proceedings of the First International Conference (FOIS’98), 6–8 June, Trento, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarino, N., C. Welty, B. Smith, eds. 2001. The Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS-01), Oct 16–19 2001, Ogunquit, Maine. ACM Press Book Series, Sheridan Publishing, Inc. http://www.fois.org/fois-2001/index.html

  • Guha, R.V. 1991. Contexts: A formalization and some applications. PhD thesis, Stanford University. Also published as technical report STAN-CS-91-1399-Thesis, and MCC Technical Report Number ACT-CYC-423-91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haase, P., V. Honavar, O. Kutz, Y. Sure, and A. Tamilin, eds. 2006. Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on modular ontologies. WoMO’06. 5 Nov 2006, Athens, Georgia, USA. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 232. http://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-232/

  • Hamlyn, D.W. 1984. Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, P.J. 2006. IKL Guide. On behalf of the IKRIS Interoperability Group. http://nrrc.mitre.org/NRRC/Docs_Data/ikris/ICL_guide.pdf

  • Hayes, P.J., and C. Menzel. 2006. IKL Specification Document. Unpublished IKRIS memorandum. http://nrrc.mitre.org/NRRC/Docs_Data/ikris/ICL_spec.pdf

  • Hayes, P., F. Lehmann, C. Welty. 2002. Endurantism and Perdurantism: An Ongoing Debate. IEEE SUO email exchange, compiled and edited by Adam Pease. http://www.ontologyportal.org/pubs/dialog-3d-4d.html

  • Heller, B., H. Herre. 2004. Ontological Categories in GOL [Generalized Ontological Language]. Axiomathes 14:57–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herre, H., and F. Loebe. 2005. A Meta-ontological architecture for foundational onatologies. In CoopIS/DOA/ODBASE 2005, LNCS 3761, ed. R. Meersman, and Z. Tari, 1398–1415. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herre, H., B. Heller, P. Burek, R. Hoehndorf, F. Loebe, and H. Michalek. 2006. General formal ontology (GFO) – part I: Basic principles. Technical report 8, Germany: Onto-Med, University of Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J., F. Pianesi, and A. Varzi, eds. 2000. Speaking of events. Oxford Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, J.R., and F. Pan, 2006. Time Ontology in OWL. W3C Working Draft 27 Sept 2006. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/

  • Hodges, W. 1997. A shorter model theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • IEEE Standard Upper Ontology (SUO). http://suo.ieee.org/

  • Interoperable Knowledge Representation for Intelligence Support (IKRIS). 2006. http://nrrc.mitre.org/NRRC/Docs_Data/ikris/

  • Information Flow Framework. http://suo.ieee.org/IFF/ See also: http://www.ontologos.org/IFF/IFF.html

  • Izza, S., L. Vincent, and P. Burlat. 2005. Ontology urbanization for semantic integration: Dealing with semantics within large and dynamic enterprises. Proceedings of the 2005 Ninth IEEE International EDOC Enterprise Computing Conference (EDOC’05).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahlert, R.C., and J. Sullivan. 2006. Microtheories. In First international workshop: Ontology based modeling in the humanities, eds. W. von Hahn, and C. Vertan, 7–8 Apr 2006, University of Hamburg (Bericht 264).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalfoglou, Y., and M. Schorlemmer. 2004. In Ontology mapping: The state of the art, eds. A. Sheth, S. Staab, and M. Uschold, Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings on Semantic Interoperability and Integration Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum (IBFI), http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2005/40/pdf/04391.KalfoglouYannis.Paper.40.pdf

  • Kalfoglou, Y., and M. Schorlemmer. 2003. Ontology mapping: The state of the art. Knowledge Engineering Review 18(1):1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalfoglou, Y., and M. Schorlemmer. Information-flow-based ontology mapping. In On the move to meaningful internet systems 2002: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2519, 1132–1151. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keefe, R., and P. Smith, eds. 1999. Vagueness: A reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, R.E. 2002. The IFF approach to semantic integration. Power point presentation at the boeing Mini-workshop on semantic integration, 7 Nov 2002. http://www.ontologos.org/Papers/Boeing%20Mini-Workshop.ppt

  • Kent, R.E. 2003. The IFF approach to the lattice of theories. Unpublished manuscript, Apr 22 2003. Formerly at: http://suo.ieee.org/IFF/lattice-of-theories.pdf

  • Kent, R.E. 2004. The IFF foundation for ontological knowledge organization. In Knowledge organization and classification in international information retrieval, eds. N.J. Williamson, and C. Beghtol, 187–203. Volume 37 of Cataloging & Classification Quarterly. New York: Haworth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, R.E. 2006. The information flow framework: New architecture. International Category Theory Conference (CT 2006), White Point, Nova Scotia, 25 June – 1 July 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, R.E. 2010. The information flow framework. Chapter in Part One: Ontology as Technology in the book: TAO – Theory and applications of ontology, volume 2: The information-science stance, eds. M. Healy, A. Kameas, and R. Poli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiryakov, A., K. Simov, and M. Dimitrov. 2001. Onto map: Portal for upper-level ontologies. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, 2001, eds. W. Guarino, and Smith, 47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowledge Interchange Format (KIF) Specification (draft proposed American National Standard [dpANS] NCITS.T2/9 8-004: http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html Now superseded by Common Logic.

  • Knowledge Web (KWEB). 2004–2008. http://knowledgeweb.semanticweb.org/index.html

  • Kokinov, B., D.C. Richardson, T.R. Roth-Berghofer, and L. Vieu, eds. 2007. Modeling and Using Context 6th International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT 2007, Roskilde, Denmark, 20–24Aug 2007, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence Vol. 4635, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutz, O., and T. Mossakowski. 2007. Modules in transition - Conservativity, composition, and colimits. Second International Workshop on Modular Ontologies. 28 Oct 2007, Whistler, BC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenat, D. 1998. The dimensions of Context-space, cycorp technical report, 28 Oct 1998. http://www.cyc.com

  • Lenat, D., and R. Guha. 1990. Building large knowledge based systems. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. 1980. Index, Context, and Content. In Philosophy and grammar, eds. S. Kanger, and S. Ohman, Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loux, M.J. 2002. Metaphysics: A contemporary introduction, 2nd edn. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüttich, K., C. Masolo, and S. Borgo. 2006. Development of modular ontologies in CASL. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Modular Ontologies, WoMO’06, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 232, eds. H. Haas, S. Kutz, and A. Tamilin, 5 Nov 2006, Athens, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loebe, F. 2006. Requirements for Logical Modules. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Modular Ontologies, WoMO’06, eds. H. Haas, S. Kutz, A. Tamilin, 5 Nov 2006, Athens, Georgia, USA. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makarios, S. 2006a. A model theory for a quantified generalized logic of contexts. Stanford University Technical Report KSL-06-08. http://ftp://ftp.ksl.stanford.edu/pub/KSL_Reports/KSL-06-08.pdf

  • Makarios, S. 2006b. ICL Specification. On behalf of IKRIS Contexts Working Group. nrrc.mitre.org/NRRC/Docs_Data/ikris/ICL_spec.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makarios, S. 2006c. ICL Guide. On behalf of IKRIS Contexts Working Group. http://nrrc.mitre.org/NRRC/Docs_Data/ikris/IKL_guide.pdf

  • Mac Lane, S. 1971. Categories for the working mathematician. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makowsky, J.A. 1992. Model theory and computer science: An appetizer. In: T.S.E. Handbook of logic in computer science, Volume 1, background: Mathematical structures, eds. S. Abramsky, D. Gabbay, and Maibaum, 763–814. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masolo, C., S. Borgo, A. Gangemi, N. Guarino, and A. Oltramari. WonderWeb Deliverable D18 Ontology Library (final), 31 Dec 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J., and S. Buvač. 1997. Formalizing Context (Expanded Notes). In Computing natural langauge, eds. A. Aliseda, R. van Glabbeek, and D. Westerståhl, Amsterdam: Stanford University. http://www-formal.stanford.edu.

  • McCarthy, J. 1987. Generality in artificial intelligence. Communications of the ACM 30(12):1030–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. 1990. Formalizing common sense: Papers By John Mccarthy. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 355 Chestnut Street, Norwood, NJ 07648.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. 1993. Notes on formalizing context. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzel, C. 1999. The objective conception of context and its logic. Minds and Machines 9(1):29–56 (Feb 1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obrst, L, D. Nichols. 2005. Context and ontologies: Contextual indexing of ontological expressions. AAAI 2005 Workshop on Context and Ontologies, poster, AAAI 2005, 9–13 July, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obrst, L., H. Liu, and R. Wray. 2003. Ontologies for corporate web applications. Artificial Intelligence Magazine, special issue on Ontologies, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, ed. C. Welty, 49–62, Fall 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obrst, L, D. Nichols. 2005. Context and ontologies: Contextual indexing of ontological expressions. AAAI 2005 Workshop on Context and Ontologies, poster, AAAI 2005, July 9–13, Pittsburgh, PA. http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_05/05_0903/index.html

  • Obrst, L., P. Cassidy, S. Ray, B. Smith, D. Soergel, M. West, and P. Yim. 2006. The 2006 Upper Ontology Summit Joint Communiqué. Journal of Applied Formal Ontology 1:2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obrst, L., T. Hughes, and S. Ray. 2006. Prospects and possibilities for ontology evaluation: The view from NCOR. Workshop on Evaluation of Ontologies for the Web (EON2006), Edinburgh, UK, 22 May 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obrst, L., W. Ceusters, I. Mani, S. Ray, and B. Smith. 2007. The Evaluation of Ontologies: Toward Improved Semantic Interoperability. Chapter In Semantic web: Revolutionizing knowledge discovery in the life sciences, eds. J.O. Christopher, Baker, K-H. Cheung, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obrst, L. 2002. Ontology spectrum and semantic integration and interoperability. Briefing to DARPA, 2 June 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obrst, L., and I. Mani, eds. 2000. Proceedings of the Workshop on Semantic Approximation, Granularity, and Vagueness, 11 Apr 2000, Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-2000), 12–16 Apr, Breckenridge, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obrst, L., G. Whittaker, and A. Meng. 1999. Semantic interoperability via context interpretation, Context-99, Trento, Italy, Apr 1999, invited poster session.

    Google Scholar 

  • Object Management Group (OMG): Meta Object Facility (MOF) Specification. 2006. Version 2.0. Object Management Group (OMG), Needham, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • OntoWeb. http://www.ontoweb.org/ Finished on 13 May 2004. Follow-on project was Knowledge Web.

  • OpenCyc Website. http://www.opencyc.org/

  • OWL 1.1. Web Ontology Language Tractable Fragments, W3C Member Submission 19 December 2006. http://www.w3.org/Submission/owl11-tractable/

  • Niles, I., and A. Pease. 2001a. Origins of the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology, in Working Notes of the IJCAI-2001 Workshop on the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niles, I., and A. Pease. 2001b. Towards a standard upper ontology. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS-2001), eds. C. Welty, and B. Smith, Ogunquit, Maine, 17–19 Oct 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partridge, C. 2002. Note: A couple of meta-ontological choices for ontological architectures. Technical Report 06/02, LADSEB-CNR, Padova, Italy, June 2002. http://www.boroprogram.org/bp_pipex/ladsebreports/ladseb_t_r_06-02.pdf

  • Phytila, C. 2002. An Analysis of the SUMO and Description in Unified Modeling Language, Apr 2002, unpublished. http://ontology.teknowledge.com/Phytila/Phytila-SUMO.html

  • Pianesi, F., and A. Varzi. 2000. Events and event talk: An introduction. Ch. 1 of Higgenbotham et al., 3–48. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poli, R. 2003. Descriptive, formal and formalized ontologies. In Husserl’s logical investigations reconsidered, ed. D. Fisette, and D. Kluwer, 193–210. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poli, R. 2010. The categorial stance. Chapter 2 in Part One: Ontology as Technology in the book: TAO – Theory and applications of ontology, volume 2: The information-science stance, eds. M. Healy, A. Kameas, and R. Poli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poli, R., and L. Obrst. 2010. The interplay between ontology as categorial analysis and ontology as technology. Chapter 9 in Part One: Ontology as Technology in the book: TAO – Theory and applications of ontology, volume 2: The information-science stance, eds. M. Healy, A. Kameas, and R. Poli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulvermacher, M., L. Obrst, S. Semy, and S. Stoutenburg. 2005. Perspectives on applying semantic web technologies in military domains, MITRE Technical Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royce, W. 2002. CMM vs. CMMI: From conventional to modern software management. Rational edge: E-zine for the rational community, Feb 2002. Rational Software Corporation. http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/content/RationalEdge/feb02/ConventionalToModernFeb02.pdf

  • Samuel, K., L. Obrst, S. Stoutenberg, K. Fox, A. Johnson, K. Laskey, D. Nichols, and J. Peterson. 2006. Transforming OWL and semantic web rules to prolog: Toward description logic programs. Poster, ALPSWS: Applications of Logic Programming in the Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services, 16 Aug 2006, Federated Logic Conference 2006, Seattle, WA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Semy, S., M. Pulvermacher, and L. Obrst. 2005. Toward the use of an upper ontology for U.S. government and U.S. Military domains: An evaluation. MITRE Technical Report, MTR 04B0000063, Nov 2005. http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_05/04_1175/index.html

  • Simperl, E.P.B., C. Tempich, and Y. Sure. 2006. ONTOCOM: A cost estimation model for ontology engineering. Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference ISWC 2006. http://ontocom.ag-nbi.de/

  • Smith, B. 2004. Beyond concepts: Ontology as reality representation. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Formal Ontology and Information Systems, eds. A. Varzi, and L. Vieu, 73–84. FOIS 2004, Turin, 4–6 Nov 2004, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B., J. Williams, and S-K. Steffen. 2003. The ontology of the gene ontology. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings 2003:609–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. 1996. Mereotopology: A theory of parts and boundaries. Data and Knowledge Engineering 20:287–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith. B. 1998. Basic concepts of formal ontology. In Formal ontology in information systems, ed. N. Guarino, 19–28. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M.K., C. Welty, and D.L. McGuinness. 2004. OWL web ontology language guide, W3C Recommendation, 10 Feb 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/

  • Schneider, L. 2003. How to build a foundational ontology: The object-centered highlevel reference ontology OCHRE. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual German Conference on AI, KI 2003: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, volume 2821 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, eds. A. Günter, R. Kruse, and B. Neumann, 120–134. Springer, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schorlemmer, W.M., and Y. Kalfoglou. 2008. Institutionalising ontology-based semantic integration. Journal of applied ontology. 3(3):131–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sider, T. 2002. Four-dimensionalism: An ontology of persistence and time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sowa, J.F. 2005. Theories, Models, Reasoning, Language, and Truth. http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/theories.htm

  • Standard Upper Ontology (SUO) Working Group Website. http://suo.ieee.org/

  • Stalnaker, R. 1998. On the representation of context. Journal of logic language and information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoutenburg, S., L. Obrst, D. Nichols, K. Samuel, and P. Franklin. 2006. Applying semantic rules to achieve dynamic service oriented architectures. RuleML 2006: Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web, co-located with ISWC 2006, Athens, GA, 10–11 Nov 2006. In Service-Oriented Computing – ICSOC 2006, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 4294, 2006, 581–590. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoutenburg, S., and L. Obrst, D. Nichols, J. Peterson, and A. Johnson. 2005. Toward a standard rule language for semantic integration of the DoD enterprise. W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for Interoperability, 27–28 Apr 2005, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoutenburg, S., and L. Obrst. 2005. Toward a standard rule language for enterprise application integration. Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web, presentation, 3rd International Semantic Web Conference, 7–11 Nov 2005, Hiroshima, Japan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoutenburg, S., and L. Obrst. 2005. Orchestration of ontologies and rules for integration of the DoD enterprise. Protégé With Rules Workshop, paper and presentation, 8th International Protégé Conference 2005, 18–21 July Madrid, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawson, P.F. 1959. Individuals: An essay in descriptive metaphysics. London: Methuan University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) Website. http://www.ontologyportal.org/

  • Tarski, A. 1933. The concept of truth in formalized languages. In Logic, Semantics, Mathematics, ed. J. Woodger, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarski, A. 1944. The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics. In Philosophy and phenomenological research, Volume 4, 1944, 341–375. Reproduced in: The Philosophy of Language, A.P. Martinich, ed. 48–71. 1985, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurman, D.A., A.R. Chappell, and C. Welty. 2006. Interoperable knowledge representation for intelligence support (IKRIS) evaluation working group report, 31 Dec 2006. http://nrrc.mitre.org/NRRC/Docs_Data/ikris/IKRIS_Evaluation_Report_31Dec06.doc

  • Upper Cyc: http://www.cyc.com/cycdoc/vocab/vocab-toc.html

  • Upper Ontology Summit, Ontolog Forum, 2006. http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit

  • Van Leeuwen, J, ed. 1994. Handbook of theoretical computer science. Volume B:Formal models and semantics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, and Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welty, C. 2006. Interoperable knowledge representation for intelligence support (IKRIS). Briefing to ontolog forum, 10 Oct 2006. http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/2006-10-10/Presentations/CWelty10102006.ppt

  • Welty, C., and D. Ferucci. 1999. Instances and classes in software engineering. Artificial intelligence, 24–28. Summer, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • What’s in Cyc? http://www.cyc.com/cyc/technology/whatiscyc_dir/whatsincyc

  • Williamson, Timothy. 1998. Vagueness. London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • WonderWeb Website. http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org/objectives.shtml. Completed, July 2004

Download references

Acknowledgments and Disclaimers

The author’s affiliation with The MITRE Corporation is provided for purposes only, and is not intended to convey or imply MITRE’s concurrence with, or support for, the positions, opinions or viewpoints expressed by the authors. I note that the views expressed in this paper are those of this author alone and do not reflect the official policy or position of any other organization or individual. I acknowledge deep appreciation for reviews of this material and suggestions to improve it by Roberto Poli and anonymous reviewers. Discussions (mostly electronic, but occasionally live) on these topics have been much appreciated, with Roberto Poli, John Sowa, Bill Andersen, members of the MITRE Information Semantics group including Ken Laskey, David Ferrell, Deborah Nichols, Mary Parmelee, Merwyn Taylor, Karla Massey, Jonathan Tivel, Frank Zhu, Richard MacMillan, and former or auxiliary members including Ken Samuel and Allen Ginsberg, and friends and colleagues including especially Suzette Stoutenburg (my best colleague and friend), Arnie Rosenthal (my best devil’s advocate and good friend), Len Seligman, Marwan Sabbouh, Peter Mork, my persevering and nascent ontologist wife Christy Obrst, and a pack of good dogs, cats, and chickens to mostly keep me level.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leo Obrst .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Obrst, L. (2010). Ontological Architectures. In: Poli, R., Healy, M., Kameas, A. (eds) Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8847-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics