An Overview of OntoClean
OntoClean is a methodology for validating the ontological adequacy and logical consistency of taxonomic relationships. It is based on highly general ontological notions drawn from philosophy, like essence, identity, and unity, which are used to elicit and characterize the intended meaning of properties, classes, and relations making up an ontology. These aspects are represented by formal metaproperties, which impose several constraints on the taxonomic relationships between concepts. The analysis of these constraints helps in evaluating and validating the choices made. In this chapter we present an informal overview of the philosophical notions involved and their role in OntoClean, review some common ontological pitfalls, and walk through the example that has appeared in pieces in previous papers and has been the basis of numerous tutorials and talks.
KeywordsPhysical Object Essential Property Ontological Commitment Unity Criterion Social Entity
Many people have made useful comments on OntoClean, and have participated in its refinement. We would like to thank in particular Mariano Fernandez Lopez, Aldo Gangemi, Giancarlo Guizzardi, Claudio Masolo, Alessandro Oltramari.
- 1.Fan, J., Barker, K., Porter, B., and Clark, P. 2001. Representing roles and purpose. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-Cap’01). Vancouver: ACM.Google Scholar
- 2.Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., and Oltramari, A. 2003. Restructuring Wordnet’s Top-level. AI Magazine, 40: 235–244.Google Scholar
- 3.Guarino, N. 1998. Formal ontology in information systems. In N. Guarino (ed.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems. Proceedings of FOIS’98, Trento, Italy, 6–8 June 1998. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
- 4.Guarino, N. and Welty, C. 2000a. Towards a methodology for ontology based model engineering. In J. Bezivin and J. Ernst, (eds.), Proceedings of IWME-2000: International Workshop on Model Engineering. June, 2000.Google Scholar
- 5.Guarino, N. and Welty, C. 2000b. Identity, unity, and individuality: Towards a formal toolkit for ontological analysis. In W. Horn (ed.), Proceedings of ECAI-2000: The European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, August, 2000. Berlin: IOS Press, pp. 219–223.Google Scholar
- 6.Guarino, N. and Welty, C. 2000c. A formal ontology of properties. In R. Dieng and O. Corby (eds.), Proceedings of EKAW-2000: The 12th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, October, 2000. Berlin: Spring, LNCS Vol. 1937, pp. 97–112.Google Scholar
- 7.Guarino, N. and Welty, C. 2002. Identity and subsumption. In R. Green, C. Bean, and S. H. Myaeng (eds.), The Semantics of Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp 111–125.Google Scholar
- 8.Lowe, E. J. 1989. Kinds of Being: A Study of Individuation, Identity, and the Logic of Sortal Terms. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
- 9.Quine, W. 1969. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- 10.Rector, A. 2002. Are Top-Level Ontologies Worth the Effort? Panel at KR-2002. Toulouse, April, 2002.Google Scholar
- 11.Simons, P. 1987. Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
- 13.Wiggins, D. 1980. Sameness and Substance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar