]> MetaOnt 01-08-2011 This is a formal applied ontology that represents the domain of applied ontologies. This metaontology was developed by Pawel Garbacz and Robert Trypuz. Its latest version is available at www.l3gl.pl. This is the second release of the MetaOnt ontology. This is an auxliary property. This is an auxliary property. This property defines the arity (i.e., the number of arguments) of a relation. This property defines the unique general identifier for its object. This property has value "actual" if the domain of an applied ontology contains only actual entities, i.e., those that either existed, exist, or will exist. This property has value "possible" if the domain of an applied ontology contains also possible entities, e.g., unicorns; this flag covers also the actual entities; actual possible This property has the value "mind-independent" if the domain contains only mind independent entities. This property has the value "mind-dependent" if the domain contains only mind dependent entities, i.e., those whose existence constantly depends on the existence of (the beliefs, desires, or intentions, etc. of) some particular agent; This property has the value "mixed" if the domain contains entities of both kinds. mind-dependent mind-independent mixed This property defines the OWL prefix for an applied ontology. global local This property is used to identify a resource where the object represented by this resource is described. This property is used to identify a resource that provides information of its object. We use the following URI schematas: http, info, isbn for the values of this property. This property is used to identify a resource where the object represented by this resource is stored. This class contain actual usage instance of a given applied ontology. This class collects all authors of applied ontologies. http://dewey.info/class/700/about.rdf An ontological category is both an intentional and an intensional entity. It is intentional because it its existence and properties depend on the beliefs of its authors. It is intensional because whether a particular object falls under this category depends on the particular circumstances of the real world. This category contains controlled vocabularies that do not support inheritance. The description of the domain of an applied ontology corresponds to philosophical explanation of the concept of being. In our opinion the comprehensive ontological characteristic of the latter notion is not necessary for our purposes, i.e., we do not need to answer the ontological question ``What is the domain (of an applied ontology)?''. However, we did find it useful to associate with each such domain a set of all objects that exist therein. Even a cursory survey of existing applied ontologies clearly shows that in most cases one cannot simply identify the former with the latter. Any category of an applied ontology has, as a rule, two non-extensional aspects: - is intensional, i.e., its extension depends on particular circumstance in the world, e.g., it changes with respect to possible worlds, moments in time, etc. - is intentional, i.e., its extension eventually depends on the beliefs (and perhaps other intentional attitudes) of the ontology's developer(s). Although the latter aspect is ontologically subjective, from the epistemological point of view it is usually objectified in the technical documentation of this ontology, which may include the relevant research publications of their developers. The non-extensional character of the ontological domains is captured in our approach by means of the notion of flag. The domain of an applied ontology may characterised with respect to the following features: - modality flag: a. actual - if the domain contains \emph{only} actual entities, i.e., those that either existed, exist, or will exist; b. possible - if besides actual entities the domain contains also possible ones, e.g., unicorns. In order to establish the value of this flag one needs to consult the technical documentation of the ontology in question and review the instances of its categories (if any). - objectivity flag: a. mind-dependent - if the domain contains only mind dependent entities, i.e., those whose existence rigidly (either constantly or historically) depends on the existence of (the beliefs, desires, or intentions, etc. of) some particular agent; b. mind-independent - if the domain contains only mind independent entities, c. mixed - if the domain contains entities of both kinds. In order to establish the value of this flag one needs to review the list of categories of the ontology in question together with its technical documentation in the search of the mind-dependent categories. - scope flag: a. global - if, according to the developers of the ontology, the domain covers the whole of reality, b. local - if, according to the developers of the ontology, the domain does not cover the whole of reality. In order to establish the value of this flag one needs to consult the technical documentation of the ontology in question in the search of any declarations of the above kind. The well-known qualifications: ``upper-level ontology'', ``top-level ontology'', or ``general ontology'' vs. ``domain ontology'' or ``middle-level ontology'' may be instructive in this respect; however, they are not decisive as their semantics is not sufficiently clear and stable. http://dewey.info/class/000/about.rdf http://dewey.info/class/900/about.rdf This class collects all types of intended usages for an applied ontology. The instances of types are taken from (Mizoguchi 2003). The classic understanding of language is adopted: a language is construed as a triad constituted by the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects. For instance, OWL/XML and OWL Manchester Syntax are understood here as two different formal languages. Two types of ontological languages are distinguished: languages that support formal inference and the languages that do not. An inference is understood as a cognitive process whereby a new piece of knowledge is obtained on the basis of some previously acquainted knowledge. An inference is formal if its validity depends on the structures of its premises and conclusion and not on their content. For instance, if an ontology is a simple list of objects rendered as an CSV file, no inference within this ontology is supported by the CSV format. We do not distinguish between ontological conceptualisations and ontological realisations/implemententation (as OMV does) because usually even minor changes in the way an ``abstract'' idea is formulated lead to different views on the domain in question. In particular, when an ontology is rendered in two formal languages, say, the full first-order logic and some weak description logic language like OWL DL, the two formalisations are in fact two different theories due to the difference in the expressivity of their languages. Consequently, each will represent its domain in a slightly (or, as it may happen, radically) different way. The resulting differences are of particular importance when a ontology in question is to disambiguate the natural language discourse for the sake of, say, semantic negotiations within a network of agents. Then even minor changes in the formalisation may result in significant semantic discrepancies and consequently in negotiation failure. A language supports formal inference if its semantics is sufficiently developed so that one can define therein the standard model-theoretic notion of validity. http://dewey.info/class/400/about.rdf http://dewey.info/class/800/about.rdf This metacategory contains methodologies developed for the sake of applied ontology. 1 http://dewey.info/class/100/about.rdf 2 All categories that can be adequately represented by n-ary (i.e., binary, ternary, etc.) predicates. http://dewey.info/class/200/about.rdf http://dewey.info/class/600/about.rdf http://dewey.info/class/300/about.rdf This category is divided according to the main classes from the "first summary" of Dewey Decimal Classification (23rd edition). A source of knowledge for an applied ontology documents an ontological choice made when the ontology was developed. We divide the category of knowledge sources into two subcategories: de- scriptive knowledge and normative knowledge. A source of knowledge is de- scriptive if it provides factual information on how certain things are. A source of knowledge may be descriptive without being truthful, reliable, authorita- tive, etc. Thus, we include here not only scientific conceptions and theories, but also philosophical or commonsense beliefs. For the sake of clarity, we organise the descriptive sources of knowledge according to the top-most cat- egories of the Dewey Decimal Classification (Dewey (1876)), however, this assumption is not crucial to our approach and may be dropped in favour of some other classification. On the other hand, a source of knowledge is normative if it provides non-factual information on how certain things are expected (by someone or someones) to be. This category includes all kinds of standards, requirement specifications, technical designs for the legacy data systems, etc. This distinction is parallel the distinction between two kinds of the direction of fit among speech acts: “word-to-world” and “world-to-word” - see Searle and Vanderveken (1985). http://dewey.info/class/600/about.rdf All categories that can be adequately represented by unary predicates.