As systems that rely on domain ontologies expand, they often need to merge domain ontologies by hand-tuning each entity or using a combination of software merging and hand-tuning. This presents a challenge to the ontology designer. Different ontologies in the same domain arise due to different languages, different intended usage of the ontologies, and different perceptions of the domain based on cultural background, education, ideology, etc.
At present, merging ontologies that are not developed from a common upper ontology is a largely manual process and therefore time-consuming and expensive.
Domain ontologies that use the same upper ontology to provide a set of basic elements with which to specify the meanings of the domain ontology entities can be merged with less effort. There are studies on generalized techniques for merging ontologies,  but this area of research is still ongoing, and it's a recent event to see the issue sidestepped by having multiple domain ontologies using the same upper ontology like the OBO Foundry.
An upper ontology or foundation ontology is a model of the common relations and objects that are generally applicable across a wide range of domain ontologies. It usually employs a core glossary that contains the terms and associated object descriptions as they are used in various relevant domain ontologies. The Gellish ontology is an example of a combination of an upper and a domain ontology. A survey of ontology visualization techniques is presented by Katifori et al.
Ontology engineering also called ontology building is a set of tasks related to the development of ontologies for a particular domain. Ontology engineering aims to make explicit the knowledge contained in software applications, and organizational procedures for a particular domain. Ontology engineering offers a direction for overcoming semantic obstacles, such as those related to the definitions of business terms and software classes.
Known challenges with ontology engineering include:. Ontology editors are applications designed to assist in the creation or manipulation of ontologies.
It's common for ontology editors to use one or more ontology languages. Aspects of ontology editors include: Ontology learning is the automatic or semi-automatic creation of ontologies, including extracting a domain's terms from natural language text.
As building ontologies manually is extremely labor-intensive and time consuming, there is great motivation to automate the process. Information extraction and text mining have been explored to automatically link ontologies to documents, for example in the context of the BioCreative challenges.
An ontology language is a formal language used to encode an ontology. There are a number of such languages for ontologies, both proprietary and standards-based:.
The development of ontologies has led to the emergence of services providing lists or directories of ontologies called ontology libraries. Logic machines in fiction and List of fictional computers. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For the Google knowledge base, see Knowledge Graph. For other uses, see Knowledge engine disambiguation. This article is about ontology in information science. For the study of the nature of being, see Ontology. This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. January Learn how and when to remove this template message. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies.
Cambridge Journal of Economics. Retrieved 16 June — via Oxford Journals. A Look Back and a Look Forward". Encyclopedia of Database Systems. Archived from the original on A Mathematical Introduction to Logic 1 ed. Retrieved 23 May University of Edinburgh Department of Informatics.
Retrieved 2 January Retrieved 31 March Retrieved 10 February Retrieved 21 February Archived from the original PDF on 4 March Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Specification of Version 2. Proceedings of the AIS conference. Retrieved 4 June Text-mining approaches and the Bio Creative experience". Retrieved 29 January Archived from the original PDF on Retrieved 15 March Retrieved 15 June Archived from the original on 18 September Archived from the original on 19 July Archived from the original on 16 April Retrieved 16 April Retrieved 1 July Retrieved 4 May Archived from the original on 10 August Coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration".
Archived from the original on 11 November Their movement is influenced by the parenklisis Lucretius names it clinamen and that is determined by the chance. These ideas foreshadowed our understanding of traditional physics until the nature of atoms was discovered in the 20th century.
Plato developed this distinction between true reality and illusion, in arguing that what is real are eternal and unchanging Forms or Ideas a precursor to universals , of which things experienced in sensation are at best merely copies, and real only in so far as they copy 'partake of' such Forms.
In general, Plato presumes that all nouns e. Hence, in The Sophist Plato argues that Being is a Form in which all existent things participate and which they have in common though it is unclear whether 'Being' is intended in the sense of existence , copula , or identity ; and argues, against Parmenides, that Forms must exist not only of Being, but also of Negation and of non-Being or Difference.
In his Categories , Aristotle identifies ten possible kinds of things that may be the subject or the predicate of a proposition. For Aristotle there are four different ontological dimensions: According to Avicenna , and in an interpretation of Greek Aristotelian and Platonist ontological doctrines in medieval metaphysics , being is either necessary, contingent qua possible, or impossible.
Necessary being is that which cannot but be, since its non-being entails a contradiction. Contingent qua possible being is neither necessary nor impossible for it to be or not to be. It is ontologically neutral, and is brought from potential existing into actual existence by way of a cause that is external to its essence.
Its being is borrowed unlike the necessary existent, which is self-subsisting and is impossible for it not to be. As for the impossible, it necessarily does not exist, and the affirmation of its being is a contradiction. The concept of 'ontological formations' refers to formations of social relations understood as dominant ways of living.
Temporal, spatial, corporeal, epistemological and performative relations are taken to be central to understanding a dominant formation. That is, a particular ontological formation is based on how ontological categories of time, space, embodiment, knowing and performing are lived—objectively and subjectively.
Different ontological formations include the customary including the tribal , the traditional, the modern and the postmodern. In the engaged theory approach, ontological formations are seen as layered and intersecting rather than singular formations. They are 'formations of being'. This approach avoids the usual problems of a Great Divide being posited between the modern and the pre-modern.
From a philosophical distinction concerning different formations of being, the concept then provides a way of translating into practical understandings concerning how humans might design cities and communities that live creatively across different ontological formations, for example cities that are not completely dominated by modern valences of spatial configuration.
Here the work of Tony Fry is important. Descartes argued further that this knowledge could lead to a proof of the certainty of the existence of God , using the ontological argument that had been formulated first by Anselm of Canterbury. Certainty about the existence of "the self" and "the other", however, came under increasing criticism in the 20th century. Sociological theorists, most notably George Herbert Mead and Erving Goffman , saw the Cartesian Other as a "Generalized Other", the imaginary audience that individuals use when thinking about the self.
According to Mead, "we do not assume there is a self to begin with. Self is not presupposed as a stuff out of which the world arises. Rather, the self arises in the world".
Schools of subjectivism , objectivism and relativism existed at various times in the 20th century, and the postmodernists and body philosophers tried to reframe all these questions in terms of bodies taking some specific action in an environment. This relied to a great degree on insights derived from scientific research into animals taking instinctive action in natural and artificial settings—as studied by biology , ecology ,  and cognitive science.
The processes by which bodies related to environments became of great concern, and the idea of being itself became difficult to really define. Others, mostly philosophers, tried to dig into the word and its usage. Martin Heidegger distinguished human being as existence from the being of things in the world. Heidegger proposes that our way of being human and the way the world is for us are cast historically through a fundamental ontological questioning. These fundamental ontological categories provide the basis for communication in an age: Because these basic ontological meanings both generate and are regenerated in everyday interactions, the locus of our way of being in a historical epoch is the communicative event of language in use.
Some philosophers suggest that the question of "What is? Suppose a person refers to a 'cup' as a 'chair' and makes some comments pertinent to a cup, but uses the word 'chair' consistently throughout instead of 'cup'. One might readily catch on that this person simply calls a 'cup' a 'chair' and the oddity is explained. The question of What is?
Hirsch interprets Hilary Putnam as asserting that different concepts of "the existence of something" can be correct. Common to all Indo-European copula languages is the double use of the verb "to be" in both stating that entity X exists "X is.
It is sometimes argued that a third use is also distinct, stating that X is a member of a class "X is a C". In other language families these roles may have completely different verbs and are less likely to be confused with one another. For example they might say something like "the car has redness" rather than "the car is red". Hence any discussion of "being" in Indo-European language philosophy may need to make distinctions between these senses. In human geography there are two types of ontology: The other "o", or big "O", systematically, logically, and rationally describes the essential characteristics and universal traits.
This concept relates closely to Plato's view that the human mind can only perceive a bigger world if they continue to live within the confines of their "caves". However, in spite of the differences, ontology relies on the symbolic agreements among members. That said, ontology is crucial for the axiomatic language frameworks.
Whitehead , for ontology, it is useful to distinguish the terms 'reality' and 'actuality'. In this view, an 'actual entity' has a philosophical status of fundamental ontological priority, while a 'real entity' is one which may be actual, or may derive its reality from its logical relation to some actual entity or entities. For example, an occasion in the life of Socrates is an actual entity. But Socrates' being a man does not make 'man' an actual entity, because it refers indeterminately to many actual entities, such as several occasions in the life of Socrates, and also to several occasions in the lives of Alcibiades, and of others.
But the notion of man is real; it derives its reality from its reference to those many actual occasions, each of which is an actual entity. An actual occasion is a concrete entity, while terms such as 'man' are abstractions from many concrete relevant entities.
According to Whitehead, an actual entity must earn its philosophical status of fundamental ontological priority by satisfying several philosophical criteria, as follows. Whitehead proposed that his notion of an occasion of experience satisfies the criteria for its status as the philosophically preferred definition of an actual entity. From a purely logical point of view, each occasion of experience has in full measure the characters of both objective and subjective reality.
Subjectivity and objectivity refer to different aspects of an occasion of experience, and in no way do they exclude each other. Aristotle's substances, such as Socrates, have behind them as more fundamental the 'primary substances', and in this sense do not satisfy Whitehead's criteria.
Whitehead is not happy with Leibniz' monads as actual entities because they are "windowless" and do not cause each other. States of affairs are contingent on particulars, and therefore have something behind them. Another summary, referring to its causal linkage to other actual entities, is that it is "all window", in contrast with Leibniz' windowless monads.
This view allows philosophical entities other than actual entities to really exist, but not as fundamentally and primarily factual or causally efficacious; they have existence as abstractions, with reality only derived from their reference to actual entities. A Whiteheadian actual entity has a unique and completely definite place and time.
Whiteheadian abstractions are not so tightly defined in time and place, and in the extreme, some are timeless and placeless, or 'eternal' entities. All abstractions have logical or conceptual rather than efficacious existence; their lack of definite time does not make them unreal if they refer to actual entities. Whitehead calls this 'the ontological principle'.
There is an established and long philosophical history of the concept of atoms as microscopic physical objects. They are far too small to be visible to the naked eye. It was as recent as the nineteenth century that precise estimates of the sizes of putative physical atoms began to become plausible. Almost direct empirical observation of atomic effects was due to the theoretical investigation of Brownian motion by Albert Einstein in the very early twentieth century.
But even then, the real existence of atoms was debated by some. Such debate might be labeled 'microcosmic ontology'. Here the word 'microcosm' is used to indicate a physical world of small entities, such as for example atoms.
Subatomic particles are usually considered to be much smaller than atoms. Their real or actual existence may be very difficult to demonstrate empirically. Reasonably, one may ask, in what sense, if any, do virtual particles exist as physical entities? For atomic and subatomic particles, difficult questions arise, such as do they possess a precise position, or a precise momentum?
A question that continues to be controversial is 'to what kind of physical thing, if any, does the quantum mechanical wave function refer? The first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition  was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his work Proslogion. Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be thought", and argued that this being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God.
He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible—one which exists both in the mind and in reality.
Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality. Descartes published several variations of his argument, each of which centred on the idea that God's existence is immediately inferable from a "clear and distinct" idea of a supremely perfect being.
In the early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz augmented Descartes' ideas in an attempt to prove that a "supremely perfect" being is a coherent concept. Norman Malcolm revived the ontological argument in when he located a second, stronger ontological argument in Anselm's work; Alvin Plantinga challenged this argument and proposed an alternative, based on modal logic.
Attempts have also been made to validate Anselm's proof using an automated theorem prover. Other arguments have been categorised as ontological, including those made by Islamic philosophers Mulla Sadra and Allama Tabatabai. Jaakko Hintikka puts the view that a useful explication of the notion of existence is in the words "one can find", implicitly in some world or universe of discourse.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Ontology in business research can be defined as “the science or study of being” and it deals with the nature of reality. Ontology is a system of belief that reflects an interpretation by an individual about what constitutes a fact.
Ontology definition is - a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being. How to use ontology in a sentence.
What on earth are Ontology and Epistemology? Dr Sally Vanson I am an NLP Master Trainer, sit on the accreditation panel of ANLP, the Research Committee of ICF and am CEO of The Performance Solution where as well as training professional coaches to get accreditation through ICF, we have designed, developed and run the world’s. Definition of ontology - the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being., a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that sho.
The fundamental difference between ontology and epistemology is that ontology is the study of being, and epistemology is the study of knowledge. This difference has everything to do with how they are related, so the original answer does still apply. Epistemology, Ontology & Research Practice! 4 key items in the construction and process of research: 1. Methods - techniques or procedures.