Advertisement

Ontological Analysis of Taxonomic Relationships

  • Nicola Guarino
  • Christopher Welty
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1920)

Abstract

Taxonomies based on a partial-ordering relation commonly known as is-a, class inclusion or subsumption have become an important tool in conceptual modeling. A well-formed taxonomy has significant implications for understanding, reuse, and integration, however the intuitive simplicity of taxonomic relations has led to widespread misuse, making clear the need for rigorous analysis techniques. Where previous work has focused largely on the semantics of the is-a relation itself, we concentrate here on the ontological nature of the arguments of this relation, in order to be able to tell whether a single is-a link is ontologically well-founded. For this purpose, we discuss techniques based on the philosophical notions of identity, unity, essence, and dependence, which have been adapted to the needs of information systems design. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these techniques by taking real examples of poorly structured taxonomies, and revealing cases of invalid generalization. The result of the analysis is a cleaner taxonomy that clarifies the modeler’s ontological commitments.

Keywords

Description Logic Knowledge Engineer Taxonomic Relationship Formal Ontology Social Entity 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Artale, A., Franconi, E., Guarino, N., and Pazzi, L. 1996. Part-Whole Relations in Object-Centered Systems: an Overview. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 20(3): 347–383.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergamaschi, S. and Sartori, C. 1992. On Taxonomic Reasoning in Conceptual Design. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 17(3): 285–422.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brachman, R. 1983. What IS-A Is and Isn’t: An Analysis of Taxonomic Links in Semantic Networks. IEEE Computer, 16(10): 30–36.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brachman, R. J., McGuinness, D. L., Patel-Schneider, P. F., Resnick, L., and Borgida, A. 1990. Living with CLASSIC: When and How to Use a KL-ONE-like Language. In J. Sowa (.) Principles of Semantic Networks. Morgan Kaufmann: 401–456.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calvanese, D., Lenzerini, M., and Nardi, D. 1998. Description Logics for Conceptual Data Modeling. In J. Chomicki and G. Saake (eds.), Logics for Databases and Information Systems. Kluwer: 229–264.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elmasri, R., Weeldreyer, J., and Hevner, A. 1985. The category concept: An extension to the Entity-Relationship model. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 1(1): 75–116.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldstein, R. C. and Storey, V. C. 1999. Data abstractions: Why and how? Data and Knowledge Engineering, 29: 293–311.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gruber, T. R. 1993. Model Formulation as a Problem-Solving Task: Computer-Assisted Engineering Modeling. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 8: 105–127.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guarino, N. 1992. Concepts, Attributes and Arbitrary Relations: Some Linguistic and Ontological Criteria for Structuring Knowledge Bases. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 8(2): 249–261.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guarino, N., Carrara, M., and Giaretta, P. 1994. An Ontology of Meta-Level Categories. In D. J., E. Sandewall and P. Torasso (eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference (KR94). Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA: 270–280.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guarino, N. 1995. Formal Ontology, Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation. International Journal of Human and Computer Studies, 43(5/6): 625–640.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guarino, N. 1998a. Formal Ontology in Information Systems. In N. Guarino (ed.) Formal Ontology in Information Systems. Proceedings of FOIS’98, Trento, Italy, 6-8 June 1998. IOS Press, Amsterdam: 3–15.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guarino, N. 1999. The Role of Identity Conditions in Ontology Design. In Proceedings of IJCAI-99 workshop on Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods: Lessons Learned and Future Trends. Stockholm, Sweden, IJCAI, Inc.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guarino, N. and Welty, C. 2000a. Identity, Unity, and Individuality: Towards a Formal Toolkit for Ontological Analysis. In Proceedings of ECAI-2000: The European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Berlin, Germany, IOS Press. Available from http://www.ladseb.pd.cnr.it/infor/ontology/Papers/OntologyPapers.html
  15. 15.
    Guarino, N. and Welty, C. 2000b. A Formal Ontology of Properties. In Rose Dieng (ed.), Proceedings of 12th Int. Conf. on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, Springer Verlag. Available from http://www.ladseb.pd.cnr.it/infor/ontology/Papers/OntologyPapers.html
  16. 16.
    Guarino, N. and Welty, C. 2000c. Towards a methodology for ontology-based model engineering. In Proceedings of ECOOP-2000 Workshop on Model Engineering. Cannes, France. Available from http://www.ladseb.pd.cnr.it/infor/ontology/Papers/OntologyPapers.html
  17. 17.
    Hirst, G. 1991. Existence Assumptions in Knowledge Representation. Artificial Intelligence, 49: 199–242.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huitt, R. and Wilde, N. 1992. Maintenance Support for Object-Oriented Programs. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, 18(12).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Humberstone, I. L. 1996. Intrinsic/Extrinsic. Synthese, 108: 205–267.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lowe, E. J. 1989. Kinds of Being. A Study of Individuation, Identity and the Logic of Sortal Terms. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Quine, W. V. O. 1969. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. Columbia University Press, New York, London.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Simons, P. 1987. Parts: a Study in Ontology. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Storey, V. C. 1993. Understanding Semantic Relationships. Very Large Databases Journal, 2: 455–488.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Storey, V., Dey, D., Ullrich, H., and Sundaresan, S. 1998. An ontology-based expert system for database design. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 28: 31–46.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Strawson, P. F. 1959. Individuals. An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. Routledge, London and New York.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Teorey, T. J., Yang, D., and Fry, J. P. 1986. A Logical Design Methodology for Relational Databases Using the Extended Entity-Relationship Model. ACM Computing Surveys, 18(2): 197–222.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Welty, C. A description-logic based system for ontology-driven conceptual analysis. System demo available at http://untangle.cs.vassar.edu/odca/.
  28. 28.
    Wieringa, R., De Jonge, W., and Spruit, P. 1994. Roles and dynamic subclasses: a modal logic approach. In Proceedings of European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming. Bologna.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wiggins, D. 1980. Sameness and Substance. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicola Guarino
    • 1
  • Christopher Welty
    • 2
  1. 1.LADSEB/CNRPadovaItaly
  2. 2.Vassar CollegePoughkeepsieNY

Personalised recommendations