What Rocks Are Made of: Towards an Ontological Pattern for Material Constitution in the Geological Domain

  • Luan Fonseca GarciaEmail author
  • Joel Luis Carbonera
  • Fabricio Henrique Rodrigues
  • Cauã Roca Antunes
  • Mara Abel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11788)


We propose an ontological pattern for dealing with the material constitution relation in Geology domain. This is important because geologists are often interested only in properties that are dependent to the matter (the rock, the minerals) or to the object (a geological unit, a grain). The scale of analysis is very important in Geology and may range from millimeters to kilometers. Differentiating the matter from the object that it constitutes allows one to represent properties from different scales separately. We first provide a short review of the state of the art for the constitution relation and how our vision fits within the existing theories.


Ontological pattern Ontological design pattern Material constitution Constitution Ontology Geology Geological domain 



We would like to thanks the Informatics Institute from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq) and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for supporting our research.


  1. 1.
    Baker, L.R.: Persons and Bodies: A Constitution View. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker, L.R.: The Metaphysics of Everyday Life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bird, A., Tobin, E.: Natural kinds. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, spring 2018 edn. (2018)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borgo, S., Vieu, L.: Artefacts in formal ontology. In: Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, pp. 273–307. Elsevier (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evnine, S.J.: Constitution and composition: three approaches to their relation. ProtoSociology 27, 212–235 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fine, K.: Things and their parts. Midwest Stud. Philos. 23(1), 61–74 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fine, K., et al.: Acts, events and things. In: Sixth International Wittgenstein Symposium, Kirchberg-Wechsel (Austria), pp. 97–105 (1982)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A., Schneider, L.: Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, pp. 166–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnston, M.: Constitution and identity. In: The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnston, M.: Hylomorphism. J. Philos. 103(12), 652–698 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koslicki, K.: The Structure of Objects. Oxford University Press on Demand, Oxford (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Richard, S.M.: Geoscience concept models. Spec. Pap.-Geol. Soc. Am. 397, 81 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thomson, J.J.: The statue and the clay. Noûs 32(2), 149–173 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wasserman, R.: Material constitution. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, fall 2017 edn. (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Werlang, R., Abel, M., Perrin, M., Carbonera, J.L., Fiorini, S.R.: Ontological foundations for petroleum application modeling. In: 18th International Conference on Petroleum Data, Integration and Data Management (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zimmerman, D.: Theories of masses and problems of constitution. Philos. Rev. 104(1), 53–110 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Informatics Institute - Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)Porto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations