Advertisement

Improving Model Quality Through Foundational Ontologies: Two Contrasting Approaches to the Representation of Roles

  • Sergio de Cesare
  • Brian Henderson-Sellers
  • Chris Partridge
  • Mark Lycett
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9382)

Abstract

Several foundational ontologies have been developed recently. We examine two of these from the point of view of their quality in representing temporal changes, focusing on the example of roles. We discuss how these are modelled in two foundational ontologies: the Unified Foundational Ontology and the BORO foundational ontology. These exhibit two different approaches, endurantist and perdurantist respectively. We illustrate the differences using a running example in the university student domain, wherein one individual is not only a registered student but also, for part of this period, was elected the President of the Student Union. The metaphysical choices made by UFO and BORO lead to different representations of roles. Two key differences which affect the way roles are modelled are exemplified in this paper: (1) different criteria of identity and (2) differences in the way individual objects extend over time and possible worlds. These differences impact upon the quality of the models produced in terms of their respective explanatory power. The UFO model concentrates on the notion of validity in “all possible worlds” and is unable to accurately represent the way particulars are extended in time. The perdurantist approach is best able to describe temporal changes wherein roles are spatio-temporal extents of individuals.

Keywords

3D and 4D ontologies Metaphysical choices Endurantism Perdurantism Presentism Eternalism Foundational ontology Representation of temporality Roles BORO UFO 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (grant EP/K009923/1).

References

  1. 1.
    Partridge, C.: Note: A Couple of Meta-ontological Choices for Ontological Architectures. Technical Report 06/02, LADSEB-CNR, Padova, Italy (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models. CTIT Ph.D. Thesis Series, No. 05–74, Enschede, The Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Partridge, C.: Business Objects: Re-Engineering for Re-Use. Butterworth-Heinemann (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sider, T.: Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Oxford UniverCity Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    West, M.: Roles: a four-dimensional analysis. In: Borgo, S., Lesmo, L. (eds.) Formal Ontologies Meet Industry, pp. 45–55. IOS Press (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zamborlini, V., Guizzardi, G.: On the representation of temporally changing information in OWL. In: Proceeding of the 14th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops, pp. 283–292. IEEE Computer Society Press (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McTaggart, J.E.: The unreality of time. Mind 17(4), 457–474 (1908)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Eriksson, O., Agerfalk, P.J.: On the need for identity in ontology-based conceptual modelling. In: Saeki, M., Kohler, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling (APCCM 2015) Sydney, Australia. CRPIT, 165. ACS, pp. 9–20 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wieringa, R., de Jonge, W., Spruit, P.: Using dynamic classes and role classes to model object migration. Theor. Pract. Object Syst. 1(1), 31–83 (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steimann, F.: On the representation of roles in object-oriented and conceptual modelling. Data Knowl. Eng. 35, 83–106 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guizzardi, G.: Agent roles, qua individuals and the Counting Problem. In: Garcia, A., Choren, R., Lucena, C., Giorgini, P., Holvoet, T., Romanovsky, A. (eds.) SELMAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3914, pp. 143–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Eriksson, O., Gonzalez-Perez, C., Ågerfalk, P.J.: Ptolemaic metamodelling? The need for a paradigm shift. In: Garcia Diaz, V., Cueva Lovelle, J.M., Pelayo García-Bustelo, B.C., Sanjuán Martínez, O. (eds.): Progressions and Innovations in Model-Driven Software Engineering. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, USA, pp. 90–146 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guarino, N., Welty, C.A.: A formal ontology of properties. In: Dieng, R., Corby, O. (eds.) EKAW 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1937, pp. 97–112. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    IDEAS Group: The IDEAS Model. http://www.ideasgroup.org/foundation/. 22 May 2015
  15. 15.
    de Cesare, S., Foy, G., Partridge, C.: Re-engineering Data with 4D ontologies and graph databases. In: Franch, X., Soffer, P. (eds.) CAiSE Workshops 2013. LNBIP, vol. 148, pp. 304–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Armstrong, D.M.: Universals. An Opinionated Introduction. Westview, Boulder (1989)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Partridge, C., Mitchell, A., de Cesare, S.: Guidelines for developing ontological architectures in modelling and simulation. In: Tolk, A. (ed.) CAiSE Workshops 2013. ISRL, vol. 44, pp. 27–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergio de Cesare
    • 1
  • Brian Henderson-Sellers
    • 2
  • Chris Partridge
    • 1
    • 3
  • Mark Lycett
    • 1
  1. 1.Brunel University LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.School of SoftwareUniversity of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia
  3. 3.BORO Solution Ltd.LondonUK

Personalised recommendations