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