Abstract
Ontology modeling requires modeling languages expressive enough to represent various definition types. A definition type which seems to be of particular significance is that provided by the Classical Theory of Definition. In this paper we investigate if and how far the Classical Theory of Definition is adopted by some of the ontology modeling formalisms, namely by UML, ORM and DL. Moreover, we provide a means for representing some crucial issues in the context of the Classical Theory of Definition which seem to have no representation in the formalisms discussed. Among them are the identification of essential, peculiar and incidental predications and the representation of subsumption in the manner of the genus-differentia definition.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Baader, F., et al. (eds.): Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)
Brachman, R.: What isa is and isn’t: an analysis of taxonomic links in semantic networks. IEEE Computer 16(10) (1983)
Brachman, R., et al.: Living with CLASSIC: When and how to use a KL-ONE-like language. In: Sowa, J. (ed.) Principles of Semantic Networks, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1991)
Cranefield, S., Purvis, M.: UML as an ontology modeling language. In: Proc. IJCAI 1999 (1999)
Guarino, N., Welty, C.: Ontological Analysis of Taxonomic Relationships. In: Laender, A.H.F., Liddle, S.W., Storey, V.C. (eds.) ER 2000. LNCS, vol. 1920, pp. 210–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Halpin, T.: Object-Role Modeling. In: Bernus, P., Mertins, K., Schmidt, G. (eds.) Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems, Springer, Berlin (1998)
Kogut, P., et al.: UML for Ontology Development, http://www.sandsoft.com/docs/ker4.pdf
Laurence, S., Margolis, E.: Concepts and Cognitive Science. In: Laurence, S., Margolis, E. (eds.) Concepts Core Reading, MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)
Kotarbi ski, T.: Wykłady z Dziejów Logiki. PWN. Warszawa (1985)
Rickert, H.: The Theory of Definition. In: Seger J.C.: Essays on Definition, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam (2000)
Robinson, R.: Definition. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1963)
Rumbaugh, J., Jacobsson, I., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison Wesley Longman Inc., Amsterdam (1999)
Smith, R.: Aristotle’s Logic. In: Edward N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2003/entries/aristotle-logic
Sowa, J.: Knowledge Representation. Brooks/Cole (2000)
Swartz, N.: Definitions, Dictionaries, and Meaning (1997), http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/definitions.htm#part2.1
Temmerman, R.: Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam (2000)
Woods, W.: Understanding subsumption and taxonomy: A framework for progress. In: Sowa, J.F. (ed.) Principles of Semantic Networks, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1991)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Burek, P. (2004). Adoption of the Classical Theory of Definition to Ontology Modeling. In: Bussler, C., Fensel, D. (eds) Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems, and Applications. AIMSA 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3192. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30106-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30106-6_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-22959-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-30106-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive