BOROFoundationalOntology’sMeta-ontologicalChoices

FoundationalOntologiesandtheirMeta-ontologicalChoicesOnto.Com

BackgroundAnextensionalontologyforbusinesssystems

BOROApplications

• BOROwasoriginallydevelopedtolegacyre-engineerfinancialbusinesssystems.• BOROhasbeenappliedinvariousindustrialsectorsincludingfinance,oilandgas,anddefence• BOROinspiredtheupperlevelontologyoftheInternationalDefenceEnterpriseArchitectureSpecificationforexchangeGroup(IDEAS)• IDEAScurrentlyunderpinstheU.S.DepartmentofDefense ArchitectureFramework(DoDAF)• WorkiscurrentlyunderwaytoincorporateIDEASintotheU.K.MinistryofDefenceArchitectureFramework(MODAF)• AnearlyversionofBOROinspiredISO15926fordataintegrationandexchangeintheoilandgasindustry• Title:“Industrialautomationsystemsandintegration—Integrationoflife-cycledataforprocessplantsincludingoilandgasproductionfacilities”

3

2010

BOROApplications- broadtimeline

1990

OngoingBOROdevelopment

2000

ISO15926:Part2

IDEAS

DODAFDM2

MODEM

OMGUPDM

Originalsource- book

5PartridgeC(1996)BusinessObjects:Re- Engineering forre - use.ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford

BOROMethodology

• Foundationalontologyandmethodologydevelopedhandinhand.• Initialmethodologywasaimedatasystematicprocessforre-engineeringbusinessinformationsystems.• Developingtheontologyforthedevelopmentprocess.

• Currentmethodology(bCLEARer)hasbeenextendedtoincludeharvestinginformationfromlessstructuredsources;includingexcelspreadsheetsanddocuments.

Architecturalview

Currentmethodology - bCLEARer

Acontextformetaphysicalchoices

Providingacontext

• Provideacontextby• Explaininghowmeta-ontologicalchoicesinfluenceinformationsystems

• andhowtheyunderpinfoundationalontologies• Showingsomemeta-ontologicalchoices,

• soyoucanseewhattheyare

Howmeta-ontologicalchoicesinfluenceinformationsystemsandhowtheyunderpinfoundationalontologies

• Structureoftheexplanation:• Largeandcomplexinformationsystemsbenefitfromagoodontologicalarchitecture• Foundationalontologiesaimtoprovidetheontologicalarchitecture• Afoundationalontology’snatureandstructureisdrivenbyitsmetaphysicalchoices

Architecture

• Usedinavarietyofsenses• Typicallysomeformofframeworkfororganising• Examplearchitecture- Software

• “Thearchitectureofasoftwaresystemdefinesthatsystemintermsofcomputationalcomponentsandinteractionsamongthosecomponents.”SoftwareArchitecture;Shaw&Garlan;PrenticeHall,1996• Aparticularsoftwarearchitectureframeworkwillidentifythetypesofcomputationalcomponentsandinteractions

Foundational categoricalontology

• Afoundationalontologycanbedefinedasanontologythat:• “definesarangeoftop-leveldomain-independentontologicalcategories,whichformageneralfoundationformoreelaborateddomain-specificontologies”• (Guizzardi andWagner,2004).

• Acategoricalfoundationalontologyisonewheretheontologicalcategoriesare(reasonably)complete.Everythingthatexistsshouldfitunderoneormoreofthecategories.• Thesetoplevelcategoriescanbeseenasorganisingcomponentsofthearchitectureoftheontologicalzone.• Oneexamplewouldbethecategories;universalsandparticulars.

Notcrisplyclearlydefiningmetaphysics

• Norealagreementonacrispcleardefinitionofmetaphysics• “Iconfessthatcharacterizingmetaphysicsasthesystematicstudyofthemostfundamentalstructureofreality hardlysoundsveryprecise.ButIamnotofferingadefinition,imprecisioninwhichwouldindeedbeadefect.Idonotthinkitwouldbeatallprofitabletopursueadefinitionof'metaphysics',becausethedangerwouldbethatitwouldbeframedinawaywhichfavouredonemetaphysicalpositionoverothers—forinstance,inawaywhichpresumedtherealityofspace,orofcausation,whentherealityofthesethingsmaybedeniedbysomemetaphysicalsystems.”• E.J.Lowe– ThePossibilityofMetaphysics– p.2

Unavoidability ofmetaphysics

• Itisacommonplaceinmetaphysicsthatonenecessarilymakesmetaphysicalchoices– thequestioniswhetheroneisawareofit• “Findascientificmanwhoproposestogetalongwithout anymetaphysicsandyouhavefoundonewhosedoctrines arethoroughlyvitiatedbythecrudeanduncriticizedmetaphysicswithwhichtheyarepacked.Wemustphilosophize,saidthegreatnaturalistAristotle-- ifonlytoavoidphilosophizing.Everymanofushasametaphysics,andhas tohaveone;anditwillinfluencehislifegreatly.Far better,then,thatthatmetaphysicsshouldbecriticizedand notbeallowedtorunloose.”• Principles ofPhilosophy - 1.129in Collected Papers, Volume 1- Charles Sanders Peirce

• “…sciencepresupposesmetaphysics…Scientistsinevitablymakemetaphysicalassumptions,whetherexplicitlyorimplicitly,inproposingandtestingtheirtheories—assumptionswhichgobeyondanythingthatscienceitselfcanlegitimate.Theseassumptionsneedtobeexaminedcritically,whetherbyscientiststhemselvesorbyphilosophers”• p.5- Thepossibility ofmetaphysics – E.J.Lowe

• Informationsystemswillcontainmetaphysicalpositions• Thequestioniswhethersomeoneisawareofthemandhasexaminedthemcritically

...Aristotle’sconceptionofmetaphysicsasaperfectly general discipline, Isaid thatacentralaimofsuchadiscipline isthe identificationandcharacterization ofthecategories underwhichthingsfall. Itwouldnotbe faroffthemark tosaythisiswhatmetaphysicsasitisunderstoodthesedaysaimsat....Butjustwhat isittoidentify thecategories underwhichthingsfall?As Iindicatedearlier, Aristotle took thecategories tobe thehighestormostgeneral kindsunderwhich thingscanbeclassified.Thissuggeststhatwhatmetaphysiciansdoistotake allthe thingsthere areandsortthem intothemostgeneral kindsunderwhich they fall....Itwouldseem, then, thatiftheyare toidentify thehighestkinds,metaphysicians shouldseekoutthemostgeneralanswers tothe“What isit?”question.Oneway itmight seemtheymightdothisistotakea familiar object likeSocratesandposethequestion“What ishe?”Theobviousanswer is“Ahumanbeing.”Butwhile ‘humanbeing’picksoutakindunderwhichSocrates falls, there aremore general answers tothequestion“WhatkindofthingisSocrates?” Heis,afterall,aprimate, amammal, avertebrate, andananimal. To identify thecategory towhichSocratesbelongs istoidentifythe terminusorendpointinthislistofever moregeneral answers tothe“What isit?”question.Andwhendowehavethat?Thestandard reply isthatwe arrive at thecategory ofa thingwhenwe arrive atananswer tothe“What isit?”questionsuchthattheonlymoregeneral answer isgiven byaterm like ‘entity,’ ‘being,’ ‘thing,‘ or’existent’ thatappliestoeverything thatthere is.Aristotle thoughtthat the relevant answer forSocrates isgivenby theterm ‘substance,’ soAristotle tooksubstance tobethecategory underwhichSocratesandother livingbeings fall....Provided theychoosetheir sampleobjectsinaway thatissensitive tothedifferencesamong things, theywill findthemselves arriving atnew anddifferentcategories. Atsomepoint,however, theywill findthatnonewcategories emerge. Repeating theprocedure justbringsthemback tocategories theyhavealready isolated. Atthatpoint,theycanbeconfident, subjecttonormalconcernsabout theadequacy ofinductiveprocedures, thattheyhaveidentifiedall thehighestkindsorcategories ofbeing.

Foundational ontologyandmetaphysics havesimilargoals

Bothfoundationalontologiesandmetaphysics focusonthegeneral categories (ofexistence).

Howdoesphilosophycharacterisethedifferentmetaphysics?Metaphysicsthroughtheeyesofphilosophytextbooks

Exhibit1– concernsandchoices

modality

identity

particulars

time

universals

universals- realism

universals- nominalism

Exhibit2– choices,choices,choices3-dimensionalism

4-dimensionalism

noabstract objects

abstract objects

tensedtime

tenseless time

“Itisourchoices,Harry, thatshowwhatwetrulyare…”―J.K.Rowling,HarryPotterandtheChamberofSecrets

“We areourchoices.”―Jean-PaulSartre

Characterisingwithchoices

• Thesetextbooksshowthereare:• commongeneralthemes

• and• commonchoices

• Bothuseful,butchoiceofferamechanismforcharacterisation• madethisnotthatchoice

Somerelevant(?)metaphysical choicesEndurantism Perdurantism Existence. Change.

Eternalism Presentism Existence. Change.

Space-time SpaceandTime Change.

ModallyExtended ModallyFlat Modality/Possibility. Counterparts.

FirstOrderUniversalsOnly Higher OrderUniversals Existence.

Universals– MetaphysicalRealism Universals– Nominalism Identity. Cantwodifferentuniversalshavethesameextension?

Particulars– Extensional Identity Particulars - Coincident Identity.Incudesmereology.

Materialism Non-Materialism (Abstract) Existence.

BranchingTime Linear Time Existence. Possibility.

Categorical ontology Non-categorical ontology Complete – orincomplete - toplevel

PartridgeC(2002)Note:ACoupleofMeta-OntologicalChoicesforOntologicalArchitectures.LADSEBCNR,Padova,ItalyStefanoBorgo,AldoGangemi,NicolaGuarino,ClaudioMasolo,OltramariA(2002)WonderWeb DeliverableD15:OntologyRoadMap.OntologyInfrastructurefortheSemanticWeb.LaboratoryForAppliedOntology- ISTCCNR,TrentoMasolo C,Borgo S,GangemiA,Guarino N,OltramariA(2003)WonderWeb DeliverableD18:OntologyLibrary.OntologyInfrastructurefortheSemanticWeb.LaboratoryForAppliedOntology- ISTC-CNR,TrentoSemy SK,PulvermacherMK,Obrst LJ(2004)TowardtheUseofanUpperOntologyforU.S.GovernmentandU.S.MilitaryDomains:AnEvaluation.TheMITRECorporation,Bedford,Massachusetts

BORO’smetaphysicalchoices

BORO’schoices

BORO’s Choice Description

Endurantism bodies are typically temporally extended through time

Eternalism noprivilegedpresent

Space-time asinglespace-timecontinuum

ModallyFlat modalitymanagedthroughcounterparts inpossibleworlds

HigherOrderUniversals universalscanbeinstancesofotheruniversals

Universals– Nominalism (member)extensionisthecriterionofidentity

Particulars– ExtensionalIdentity (spatio-temporal)extensionisthecriterionofidentity

Materialism noabstractobjects

LinearTime timedoesnotbranch

Internaldependencies

• Onecanbeconstrainedbytherelationshipbetweenthechoices.• Somemetaphysicalchoicessitmoreeasilywithothers.• Forexample,amongphilosophersPresentistismandEndurantismgohandinhand,asdoEternalismandPerdurantism.• BOROfollowsthelatterpair.• SoBOROdoesnotgoagainstthegrainhere.

Intersubjectively ReliableIdentityCriteria

• Inscience,onedoesnotexpectdifferentscientiststogetdifferentresultswhenreproducingexperiments.• Unfortunately,inpractice,expertdomainmodellersoftenhavefundamentaldisagreementsabouttheobjectsinthedomain.

• Reconcilingtheseisawell-knownmanagementchallengeindomainmodelprojects.• Whatisneedediscriteriaofidentity,mechanismsforunderstandingidentityanddifference– partofthetopic‘identity’wementionedearlier.• Typically,afoundationalontologywillhavesomethingtosayonthese.

• Amorestringent(andpotentiallymoreuseful)desideratumisintersubjectivelyreliablecriteriaofidentity;• amechanismthatdifferentpeoplecanusetoreliablyarriveatandagreeuponthesameresult.

• Thisisnotanewidea.Quineworriedaboutthisreliabilityquestion,andthismotivatedhismetaphysicalchoices,Decock (Decock, 2002,p.93)exploresthisinsomedetail.

ChoosingIntersubjectively ReliableIdentityCriteria• BOROmakessimilarchoicestoQuineforsimilarreasons.• Forexample,Quine(likeBORO)selectsmaterialismtoavoidabstractobjectswhicharenotoriouslydifficulttoagreeon.• LikeQuine,BOROsettlesonafour-dimensionalspatio-temporalextensionalcriteriaofidentity.• UnlikeQuine(butlikeLewis)BOROchoosesmodallyflatpossibleworlds.• LikeQuine,BORO’stypesareextensional.• Sothissingleconcernhasmotivatedmostofthechoices.

Toplevelpatterns

BOROTopLevelandWhole-PartsPattern

OtherFoundational Patterns

Re-engineeringthecompanieshousedata

examples ofnamesofthecompany

examples ofcompanyevents

example ofaclassificationofbusinessactivities

example ofacompanystate

CompanyDirector

AlanSugar

AlanSugar’sspatiotemporalextent

space

timeworldA

AlanSugar

• AS1=AlanSugarasDirectorofAmserve Limited(19/4/2000– 30/6/2008)• APP1=AlanSugar’sappointmentasDirectorofAmserve Limited• TERM1=AlanSugar’sterminationasDirectorofAmserve Limited

19/4/00 3/8/01

APP1 TERM1space

time

AS1

worldA

AlanSugar

• AS2=AlanSugarasDirectorofAmsprop PropertiesLimited(3/8/2001– 30/6/2009)• APP2=AlanSugar’sappointmentasDirectorofAmsprop PropertiesLimited• TERM2=AlanSugar’sterminationasDirectorofAmsprop PropertiesLimited

30/6/09

APP2 TERM2

3/8/01

space

time

AS2

worldA

AlanSugar

30/6/09

APP1

APP2TERM1 TERM2

19/4/00 3/8/01 30/6/08

AS1

AS2

space

time

• From3/8/01to30/6/08AlanSugarhasbothdirectorships(isdirectorofbothcompanies).

worldA

space

time

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Howmanyobjects?

worldA9

Counting(ontic)commitment

Company

Asimple(simplistic?)process

Whatistheobjectcompany?

• Isitatype?• Doesithaveinstances?

• Yes• Therefore itistype

• Ifitisatypewestartwiththeinstances• Findaninstanceofthetypecompany

• Company02410731

• IsCompany02410731atype?• Doesithaveinstances?

• No• Therefore itisanelement

• Whatisthespatiotemporalextentofcompany?

Manytypesofcompanyevents

space

time

INC

AR1

TERM1

AA1

DISS

Companyasafusionofspatiotemporal’events’

APP1

Company02410731

worldA

Does thisadequately individuate thiscompany?

• Incorporation– 2/8/89(INC)• Directors’appointments (e.g.,on16/4/10– APP1)• Directors’ terminations (e.g.,on13/4/10– TERM1)

• Dissolution (11/1/12– DISS)• Filingofannual return (e.g.,9/10/90– AR1)• Filingofannualaccounts (e.g.,9/10/90– AA1)

• Companyisafirst-ordertypewithelementmembers

02410731

Companies

space

time30/6/099/10/892/8/89

NS2

NS1

NC1

• Company02410731changesitsnamefromCursitor (Thirty-Eight)LimitedtoAmserve Ltd.on9/10/89(NC1)• NameStatesofCompany02410731

• NS1:Cursitor (Thirty-Eight)Limitedfrom2/8/89to9/10/89• NS2:Amserve Ltd.from9/10/89to30/6/09

worldA

NS2

30/6/09

NC1 DISS

9/10/89

space

time

02410731 NS1

• Company02410731changesitsnamefromCursitor (Thirty-Eight)LimitedtoAmserve Ltd.on9/10/89(NC1)• NameStatesofCompany02410731

• NS1:Cursitor (Thirty-Eight)Limitedfrom2/8/89to9/10/89• NS2:Amserve Ltd.from9/10/89to30/6/09

INC

2/8/89worldA

Higherordertypes

Higher-OrderTypes

• Ubiquitous(Odell,1995;Partridgeetal.2016)• Typicallysignificantproportionofbusinesssystemsreferencedata• Simplestwayofdealingwithitistochoosetohavehigher-ordertypesinthefoundationalontology• InthisdatasettheStandardIndustryClassificationisanexample

UKStandard IndustrialClassificationofEconomicActivities(SIC)(2007)

27

UK SIC(2007) – Summary of Structure

Division Group Class and DescriptionSubclass

Section A Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing

01 Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities

01.1 Growing of non-perennial crops

01.11 Growing of cereals (except rice), leguminous crops and oil seeds

01.12 Growing of rice

01.13 Growing of vegetables and melons, roots and tubers

01.14 Growing of sugar cane

01.15 Growing of tobacco

01.16 Growing of fibre crops

01.19 Growing of other non-perennial crops

01.2 Growing of perennial crops

01.21 Growing of grapes

01.22 Growing of tropical and subtropical fruits

01.23 Growing of citrus fruits

01.24 Growing of pome fruits and stone fruits

01.25 Growing of other tree and bush fruits and nuts

01.26 Growing of oleaginous fruits

01.27 Growing of beverage crops

01.28 Growing of spices, aromatic, drug and pharmaceutical crops

01.29 Growing of other perennial crops

01.3 Plant propagation

01.30 Plant propagation

01.4 Animal production

01.41 Raising of dairy cattle

01.42 Raising of other cattle and buffaloes

01.43 Raising of horses and other equines

01.44 Raising of camels and camelids

01.45 Raising of sheep and goats

01.46 Raising of swine/pigs

01.47 Raising of poultry

01.49 Raising of other animals

01.5 Mixed farming

01.50 Mixed farming

01.6 Support activities to agriculture and post-harvest crop activities

01.61 Support activities for crop production

01.62 Support activities for animal production

01.62/1 Farm animal boarding and care

01.62/9 Support activities for animal production (other than farm animal boarding and care) n.e.c.

01.63 Post-harvest crop activities

01.64 Seed processing for propagation

01.7 Hunting, trapping and related service activities

01.70 Hunting, trapping and related service activities

A

Etc.….....................

Summary of Structure UK Standard Industrial Classification of Economic Activities 2007 – SIC(2007)

28

Division Group Class and DescriptionSubclass

02 Forestry and logging

02.1 Silviculture and other forestry activities

02.10 Silviculture and other forestry activities

02.2 Logging

02.20 Logging

02.3 Gathering of wild growing non-wood products

02.30 Gathering of wild growing non-wood products

02.4 Support services to forestry

02.40 Support services to forestry

03 Fishing and aquaculture

03.1 Fishing

03.11 Marine fishing

03.12 Freshwater fishing

03.2 Aquaculture

03.21 Marine aquaculture

03.22 Freshwater aquaculture

Section B Mining and Quarrying

05 Mining of coal and lignite

05.1 Mining of hard coal

05.10 Mining of hard coal

05.10/1 Mining of hard coal from deep coal mines (underground mining)

05.10/2 Mining of hard coal from open cast coal working (surface mining)

05.2 Mining of lignite

05.20 Mining of lignite

06 Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas

06.1 Extraction of crude petroleum

06.10 Extraction of crude petroleum

06.2 Extraction of natural gas

06.20 Extraction of natural gas

07 Mining of metal ores

07.1 Mining of iron ores

07.10 Mining of iron ores

07.2 Mining of non-ferrous metal ores

07.21 Mining of uranium and thorium ores

07.29 Mining of other non-ferrous metal ores

08 Other mining and quarrying

08.1 Quarrying of stone, sand and clay

08.11 Quarrying of ornamental and building stone, limestone, gypsum, chalk and slate

08.12 Operation of gravel and sand pits; mining of clays and kaolin

08.9 Mining and quarrying n.e.c.

08.91 Mining of chemical and fertiliser minerals

A

B

Etc.….....................

EconomicActivities

SectionASectionB

SectionC

SectionU

Section…

Divisions

Division01

Division02

Division03

Groups59.11

Classes

10.1

10.2…

Example coding:VideoProductionActivities: 59112(Section J),Division59,Group59.1,Class59.11,Subclass59.11/2

59.1 1 5 9 .1 2

5 9 .1 3

SICTaxonomy

Economic Activities

59112

59113

74100

74202

StateofCompany07382018

• SetsderivingfromtheSICclassificationarenotdisjoint

• Inthisexampleacompany’sstatemultiplyinstantiatesdifferentsections,divisions,groups,classesandsubclasses