In Defense of a Trope-Based Ontology for Conceptual Modeling: An Example with the Foundations of Attributes, Weak Entities and Datatypes

  • Giancarlo Guizzardi
  • Claudio Masolo
  • Stefano Borgo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4215)


In recent years, there has been a growing interest in approaches that employ foundational ontologies as theoretical tools for analyzing and improving conceptual modeling languages. However, some of these approaches do not always make explicit their ontological commitments. This leads to situations where criticisms resulting from the specific ontological choices made by a particular approach are generalized to the enterprise of ontology as a whole. In this paper we discuss an example of such a case involving the BWW approach. First, we make explicit the ontological commitments underlying that approach by relating it to other possible philosophical alternatives. Second, we construct an ontological theory which commits to a different philosophical position. Third, we show how the ontology proposed here can be used to provide real-world semantics and sound modeling guidelines for the modeling constructs of Attributes, Weak Entities and Datatypes. Finally, we compare the ontology proposed here with BWW, thus demonstrating its benefits.


Quality Dimension Natural Kind Attribute Function Ontological Commitment Quality Domain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Armstrong, D.M.: Universals: An Opinionated Introduction. Westview Press (1989)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bunge, M.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy. Ontology I. The Furniture of the World, vol. 3. D. Reidel Publishing, New York (1977)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davidson, D.: The Logical Form of Action Sentences. In: Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1980)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Degen, W., Heller, B., Herre, H., Smith, B.G.: Towards an axiomatized upper level ontology. In: Proc. of FOIS 2001, Maine, USA. ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: Towards ontologically based semantics for UML constructs. In: Kunii, H.S., Jajodia, S., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) ER 2001. LNCS, vol. 2224, pp. 354–367. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Conceptual Spaces: the Geometry of Thought. MIT Press, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models, PhD Thesis, University of Twente, The Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hitchman, S.: An interpretive study of how practitioners use entity-relationship modeling in a ternary relationship situation. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 11, 451–485 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Oltramari, A.: Ontology Library. WonderWeb Deliverable D18 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Object Management Group, UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification, ptc/03-08-02 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parsons, T.: Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Russel, B.: Human Knowledge, its Scopes and Limits. Allen and Unwin (1948)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schneider, L.: Formalised Elementary Formal Ontology, ISIB-CNR Technical Report 03/2002 (2002) online:,
  14. 14.
    Simons, P.: Particular in Particular Clothing: Three Trope theories of Substance. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54, 553–576 (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Veres, C., Hitchman, S.: Using Psychology to Understand Conceptual Modeling. In: 10th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2002), Poland (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Veres, C., Mansson, G.: Cognition and Modeling: Foundations for Research and Practice. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 7(1), 93–104 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vigna, S.: ERW: The Manual (2004) [online:],
  18. 18.
    Wand, Y., Storey, V.C., Weber, R.: An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 24(4), 494–528 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giancarlo Guizzardi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Claudio Masolo
    • 1
  • Stefano Borgo
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Applied Ontology (ISTC-CNR)TrentoItaly
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentFederal University of Espirito SantoVitoriaBrazil

Personalised recommendations