Grounding for an Enterprise Computing Nomenclature Ontology

  • Chris PartridgeEmail author
  • Andrew Mitchell
  • Sergio de Cesare
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11788)


We aim to lay the basis for a unified architecture for enterprise computer nomenclatures by providing the grounding ontology based upon the BORO Foundational Ontology. We start to lower two significant barriers within the computing community to making progress in this area; a lack of a broad appreciation of the nature and practice of nomenclature and a lack of recognition of some specific technical, philosophical issues that nomenclatures raise. We provide an overview of the grounding ontology and how it can be implemented in a system. We focus on the issue that arises when tokens lead to the overlap of the represented domain and its system representation – system-domain-overlap – and how this can be resolved.


Enterprise computing nomenclature ontology Nomenclature Identifier Identifier inscription Identifying space Foundational Ontology BORO System-domain-overlap Type-token distinction Type-token-occurrence distinction Use-mention distinction Paper tools 



We want to thank Salvatore Florio and Mesbah Khan for all their help in developing this paper.


  1. 1.
    Business Scenario: Identifiers in the Enterprise. The Open Group (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weber, M.: Economy and Society. Bedminister Press, New York (1922)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McMurry, J.A., et al.: Identifiers for the 21st century: how to design, provision, and reuse persistent identifiers to maximize utility and impact of life science data. PLoS Biol. 15, e2001414 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peirce, C.S.: Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1932)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Cesare, S., et al.: BORO as a foundation to enterprise ontology. J. Inf. Syst. 30, 83–112 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ramsey, F.P.: Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays. Routledge, Abingdon (1931)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Whitehead, A.N., et al.: Principia Mathematica, to *56. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1925)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Quine, W.V.: Quiddities: An Intermittently Philosophical Dictionary (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haack, S.: Philosophy of Logics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hugly, P., et al.: Expressions and Tokens. Analysis 41, 181–187 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ayer, A.J.: Language, Truth and Logic. Courier Corporation, Mineola (1946)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quine, W.: Mathematical Logic. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1940)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tarski, A.: The concept of truth in formalized languages. Log. Semant. Metamathematics 2, 152–278 (1956)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Church, A.: Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davidson, D.: Quotation. Theory Decis. 11, 27–40 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Strachey, C.: Fundamental concepts in programming languages. High.-Order Symb. Comput. 13, 11–49 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maida, A.S., et al.: Intensional concepts in propositional semantic networks. Cogn. Sci. 6, 291–330 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shapiro, S.C., Rapaport, W.J.: SNePS considered as a fully intensional propositional semantic network. In: Cercone, N., McCalla, G. (eds.) The Knowledge Frontier. SYMBOLIC, pp. 262–315. Springer, New York (1987). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Partridge, C.: Business Objects: Re-engineering for Re-use (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carnap, R.: The Logical Structure of the World: Pseudoproblems in Philosophy (1967)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BORO Solutions Ltd.LondonUK
  2. 2.University of WestminsterLondonUK

Personalised recommendations