Supporting ontological analysis of taxonomic relationships

By Chris Welty, Nicola Guarino. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 2001

445 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract Taxonomies are an important part of conceptual modeling. They provide substantial structural information, and are typically the key elements in integration efforts, however there has been little guidance as to what makes a proper taxonomy. We have adopted several notions from the philosophical practice of formal ontology, and adapted them for use in information systems. These tools, identity , essence , unity , and dependence , provide a solid logical framework within which the properties that form a taxonomy can be analyzed. This analysis helps make intended meaning more explicit, improving human understanding and reducing the cost of integration.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Computer Networks and Communications, Molecular Biology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e2e20f9c2e0dd2b44d978dc7a5f86601ff2cfb07

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Computer Networks and Communications

In Molecular Biology

Citations in the corpus

Modularisation of domain ontologies implemented in description logics and related formalisms including OWL (2003, background): “[3, 19], this paper concentrates specifically on the engineering issues of robust modular implementation in logic based formalisms such as OWL Furthermore, we concentrate on the domain level ontology rather than the high abstract categories discussed by Guarino & Welty.”
OWL Pizzas: Practical Experience of Teaching OWL-DL: Common Errors & Common Patterns (2004, background): “The examples to this point have dealt with what various authors call “first class entities”, “independent entities”, or “sortals” [4, 16], and what we prefer to call “Self-Standing entities” [10] and the relations between them.”
Ontologies: How can They be Built? (2004, background): “Two important proposals for ontology evaluation are (Gómez-Pérez 2001; GómezPérez et al. 1995) and ONTOCLEAN (Guarino and Welty 2002; Welty and Guarino 2001).”
Consistent Evolution of OWL Ontologies (2005, background): “For example, OntoClean [20] formalizes a set of meta-properties representing the philosophical notions of rigidity, identity, unity, and dependence.”
An Overview of OntoClean (2004, methodology): “The OntoClean methodology was first introdueed in aseries of eonferenee-Iength papers in 2000 [Guarino and Welty, 2000a-e; Welty and Guarino, 2001], and re eeived mueh attention and use in subsequent years.”
Modelling Ontology Evaluation and Validation (2006, methodology): “Such grid allows to present methods in terms of answers to the following questions: what is the considered method/tool like (Structure)? Subordinately: what is its goal (Goal)? What functions are supported by it (Function)? At which stage of development of an ontology may it be applied (Application)”