Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Interplay Between Ontology as Categorial Analysis and Ontology as Technology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications

Abstract

The notion of ontology today comes with two perspectives: one traditionally from philosophy and one more recently from computer science. The philosophical perspective of ontology focuses on categorial analysis, i.e., what are the entities of the world and what are the categories of entities? Prima facie, the intention of categorial analysis is to inventory reality. The computer science perspective of ontology, i.e., ontology as technology, focuses on those same questions but the intention is distinct: to create engineering models of reality, artifacts which can be used by software, and perhaps directly interpreted and reasoned over by special software called inference engines, to imbue software with human level semantics. Philosophical ontology arguably begins with the Greek philosophers, more than 2,400 years ago. Computational ontology (sometimes called “ontological” or “ontology” engineering) began about 15 years ago.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf. Daconta et al. (2003, p. 186). The first use of this “Big O, little o” terminology, as known by the authors, is in Guarino (1995). The distinction made between ontology_c and ontology_t is first made in Poli (2001b).

  2. 2.

    Bechhofer et al. (2004).

  3. 3.

    ISO Common Logic: Common Logic Standard. http://cl.tamu.edu/.

  4. 4.

    Note the philosophical, common use of “categorial” instead of the term “categorical” employed in this chapter, which comes closer however to the mathematician and logician’s use of the term “categorical”, as for example in Category and Topos Theory.

  5. 5.

    The first occasion of use of the term “ontological engineering” is apocryphal: perhaps it occurred as part of the Cyc project (Guha and Lenat, 1990).

  6. 6.

    National Center for Ontological Research (NCOR): http://ncor.buffalo.edu/.

  7. 7.

    Anecdotally, the term “ontology” had been used in computer science and artificial intelligence since the late 1980s. One of the authors of this chapter described the use of ontologies and rules in Obrst (1989).

  8. 8.

    See for example, the discussion of what an ontology is on the Ontolog Forum site: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?, i.e., Obrst (2006).

  9. 9.

    We do not discuss ontological layers here in any detail. The interested reader instead is pointed toward the chapters on the Categorial Stance and on Ontological Architectures in this volume.

  10. 10.

    General Formal Ontology (GFO): http://www.onto-med.de/en/theories/gfo/index.html. See also Herre’s chapter in this volume.

  11. 11.

    For DOLCE and OCHRE, see Masolo et al. (2003) and the site: http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html.

  12. 12.

    Basic Formal Ontology (BFO): http://www.ifomis.uni-saarland.de/bfo.

  13. 13.

    Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO): http://www.ontologyportal.org/.

  14. 14.

    Upper Cyc: http://www.cyc.com/cycdoc/vocab/vocab-toc.html.

  15. 15.

    Ontolog Forum: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?.

  16. 16.

    From Fig. 9.1 in Chapter 8, Ontological Architecture; also see Semy, Pulvermacher and Obrst (2005, p. 8).

  17. 17.

    Poli’s Ontology: The Categorial Stance (TAO-1) discusses these issues in more detail.

  18. 18.

    Bittner and Smith’s (2003) framework tries to uphold the strengths of set theory and mereology for modeling parts and wholes but avoid their respective weaknesses by building on the distinction between bona fide (objects which exist independently of human partioning efforts and fiat objects (objects which exist only because of human partitioning efforts) (Smith, 2001). As such, their theory of granular partitions begins to impinge on the distinction too between the semantic notions of intension and extension – because on one view, two intensional descriptions (“the morning star”, “the evening star”) can be seen as human partitions, even though both extensionally refer to the same object, Venus. In their view, “partition is a complex of cells in its projective relation to the world” (Bittner and Smith, 2003, p. 10), and so a triple is established: a granular partition, reality, and the set of “projections” or mappings to and from the items of the partition and reality. Whether this is ontology or ontology intermixed with epistemology remains to be clarified.

  19. 19.

    Note that we use “level” to refer in general to the levels of reality, restricting the term “layer” to over-forming relationships, and the term “stratum” to building-above relationships. The interested reader is directed to Poli, “Ontology. The Categorial Stance” (TAO-1) for a fuller exposition of this topic.

  20. 20.

    Over-forming relations (Überformung) and building-above relations (Überbauung) are from Hartmann (1952).

  21. 21.

    Open Biomedical Ontologies (OBO) Foundry. http://obofoundry.org.

  22. 22.

    There is also the instance_of relation that is the relation between a lowest-level class (nonterminal) or classes (in the case of multiple parents) and the instance (terminal, an individual or particular) which instantiates the properties of that class or classes. In general, classes are universals and instances are particulars.

References

  • Akman, V. and S. Mehmet. 1997. The use of situation theory in context modeling. Computational Intelligence 13(3):427–438, August, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asperti, A. and G. Longo. 1991. Categories, types and structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, J., and J. Seligman. 1997. Information flow: The logic of distributed systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basic Formal Ontology (BFO). http://www.ifomis.uni-saarland.de/bfo

  • Bechhofer, S., F. van Harmelen, J. Hendler, I. Horrocks, D.L. McGuinness, P.F. Patel-Schneider, and L.A. Stein. 2004. OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C Recommendation 10 Feb 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/

  • Bittner, T., B. Smith, and M. Donnelly. 2007. The logic of systems of granular partitions. Manuscript. http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/BittnerSmithDonnelly.pdf

  • Bittner, T., and B. Smith. 2003. A theory of granular partitions. In Foundations of geographic information science, eds. M. Duckham, M.F. Goodchild, and M.F. Worboys, 117–151, London: Taylor and Francis Books.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bittner, T., and B. Smith. 2001. Granular partitions and vagueness. In Formal ontology and information systems, eds. C. Welty, and B. Smith, 309–321, New York, NY: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, P., R.V. Guha, and W. Pratt. 1992. Microtheories: An ontological engineer’s guide. Technical Report Cyc-050-92, 5 Mar 1992, Cycorps, Austin, TX. http://www.cyc.com/tech-reports/cyc-050-92/cyc-050-92.html

  • Bouquet, P., F. Giunchiglia, F. Van Harmelen, L. Serafini, and H. Stuckenschmidt. 2003. C-OWL: Contextualizing ontologies. In 2nd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2003), eds. D. Fensel, K.P. Sycara, and J. Mylopoulos, 164–179, Sanibel Island, FL, 20–23 Oct 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadoli, M., and F.M. Donini. 1997. A survey on knowledge compilation. AI communications. The European Journal for Artificial Intelligence 10:137–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crole, R.L. 1994. Categories for types. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daconta, M., L. Obrst, K. Smith. 2003. The semantic web: The future of XML, web services, and knowledge management. New York, NY: Wiley, June 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwiche, A., and P. Marquis. 2001. A knowledge compilation map. http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~darwiche/d116.pdf. An earlier version appeared as “A Perspective on Knowledge Compilation.” In Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’01), Seattle, WA, 175–182.

  • Davey, B.A., and H.A. Priestley. 1991. Introduction to lattices and order. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descriptive Ontology for Linguistic and Cognitive Engineering (DOLCE). http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html

  • Farmer, W.M., J.D. Guttman, and F.J. Thayer. 1992. Little theories. In Automated deduction – CADE-11, LNCS, vol. 607, ed. D. Kapur, 567–581. http://imps.mcmaster.ca/doc/major-imps-papers.html

  • Fikes, R., and C. Welty. 2006. Interoperable knowledge representation for intelligence support (IKRIS). Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA)/Disruptive Technology Office (DTO). Final briefing, Nov 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M., and M. Gruninger. 1994. Ontologies for enterprise integration. In Cooperative Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, Toronto, ON.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganter, B., and R. Wille. 1996. Formal concept analysis: Mathematical foundations. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Formal Ontology (GFO). http://www.onto-med.de/en/theories/gfo/index.html

  • Genesereth, M.R., and Nilsson, N.J. 1987. Logical foundations of artificial intelligence. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graedel, E., P.G. Kolaitis, L. Libkin, M. Marx, J. Spencer, M.Y. Vardi, Y. Venema, and S. Weinstein. 2007. Finite model theory and its applications. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grenon, P. 2003. Spatio-temporality in basic formal ontology: SNAP and SPAN, upper level ontology, and framework of formalization (part I). Technical Report Series 05/2003, IFOMIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grenon, P., and B. Smith. 2003. Snap and span: Towards dynamic geospatial ontology.Spatial Cognition and Computation 4(1), forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, T. R. (1991). The role of common ontology in achieving sharable, Reusable knowledge bases. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference, eds. J.A. Allen, R. Fikes, and E. Sandewall, 601–602, Cambridge, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, T. 1993. A Translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5:199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guarino N. 1994. The Ontological Level. Invited Paper Presented at IV Wittgenstein Symposium, Kirchberg, Austria, 1993. In Philosophy and the cognitive sciences, eds. R. Casati, B. Smith, and G. White, Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarino, N, ed. 1998. Formal ontology and information systems introduction to formal ontology in information systems. Proceedings of the First International Conference (FOIS’98), 6–8 June 199, Trento, Italy, 3–18. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarino, N., and Giaretta, P. 1995. Ontologies and knowledge bases: Towards a terminological clarification. In Towards very large knowledge bases: Knowledge building and knowledge sharing, ed. N. Mars, 25–32, Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarino, N., and R. Poli, eds. 1995. Formal ontology in information technology. Special issue of the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43(5/6). http://www.ladseb.pd.cnr.it/infor/Ontology/IJHCS/IJHCS.html

  • Guarino, N., and C. Welty. 2002. Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean. Communications of the ACM 45(2):61–65. New York, NY: ACM Press. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=503124.503150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guha R.V. 1991. Contexts: A formalization and some applications. PhD Thesis, Stanford University. Also technical report STAN-CS-91-1399-Thesis, and MCC Technical Report Number ACT-CYC-423-91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guha, R., and D. Lenat. 1990. Cyc: A mid-term report. Microelectronics Technology and Computer Corporation (MCC), Austin, TX. Technical Report ACT-CYC-134-90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamlyn, D.W. 1984. Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, N. 1975. The new ways of ontology. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herre, H., B. Heller, P. Burek, R. Hoehndorf, F. Loebe, and H. Michalek. 2006. General formal ontology (GFO), part I: Basic principles, Version 1.0. Deliverable No. 8 – July 2006. http://www.onto-med.de/en/publications/scientific-reports/om-report-no8.pdf

  • Hohendorf, R., F. Loebe, R. Poli, H. Herre, and J. Kelso. 2008. GFO-Bio: A biological core ontology. Applied Ontology 3(4):219–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, E. 2001. Logical investigations, vols. 1 and 2, Trans. J.N. Findlay with a new Preface by Michael Dummett, edited with a new introduction by Dermot Moran, Routledge, vols. 1 and 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kautz, H., B. Selman. 1994. An empirical evaluation of knowledge compilation. Proceedings of AAAI-94, Seattle, WA, July 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, R. 2004. The IFF foundation for ontological knowledge organization. In Knowledge Organization and Classification in International Information Retrieval, eds. N.J. Williamson, and C. Beghtol, volume 37 of Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 187–203. New York, NY: Haworth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Interoperable Knowledge Representation for Intelligence Support (IKRIS). http://nrrc.mitre.org/NRRC/ikris.htm

  • ISO Common Logic. Common logic standard. http://cl.tamu.edu/

  • Keefe, R., and P. Smith, eds. 1999. Vagueness: A reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. 1980. Index, context, and content. In Philosophy and grammar, eds. S. Kanger, and S. Ohman. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambek, J., and P. Scott. 1986. Introduction to higher order categorical logic, volume 7 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loux, M.J. 2002. Metaphysics: A contemporary introduction, 2nd edn. London and New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mac Lane, S. 1971. Categories for the working mathematician, volume 5 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masolo, C., S. Borgo, A. Gangemi, N. Guarino, and A. Oltramari. 2003. Wonderweb deliverable D18: Ontology library (Final). Technical report, Laboratory for Applied Ontology – ISTC-CNR, Trento.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, E., and S. Laurence. 1999. Concepts: Core readings. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. 1987. Generality in artificial intelligence, Communications of the ACM 30(12):1030–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. 1990. Formalizing common sense: Papers by John McCarthy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. 1993. Notes on formalizing context. In Proceedings of the 13 h International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Chambery, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J., S. Buvač. 1997. Formalizing context (expanded notes). In Computing natural langauge, eds. A. Aliseda, R. van Glabbeek, and D. Westerståhl. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://www-formal.stanford.edu

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzel, C. 1999. The objective conception of context and its logic. Minds and Machines 9(1):29–56, Feb 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitra, P., G. Wiederhold, and M. Kersten. 2000. A graph-oriented model for articulation of ontology interdependencies. Accepted for Extending DataBase Technologies, EDBT 2000, Konstanz, Germany, March 2000. http://www-db.stanford.edu/SKC/publications.html

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Ontological Research (NCOR). http://ncor.buffalo.edu/

  • Neches, R., R. Fikes, T. Finin, T. Gruber, R. Patil, T. Senator, and W.R. Swartout. 1991. Enabling technology for knowledge sharing. AI Magazine 12(3), Fall 1991. http://www.isi.edu/isd/KRSharing/vision/AIMag.html

  • Noy, N.F., and M.A. Musen. 2000. PROMPT: Algorithm and tool for automated ontology merging and alignment. 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2000), Austin, TX. Technical Report SMI-2000-0831, Stanford Medical Informatics, Stanford University. http://smi-web.stanford.edu/pubs/SMI_Abstracts/SMI-2000-0831.html

  • Open Biomedical Ontologies (OBO). Foundry. http://obofoundry.org

  • Object-Centered High-level Reference Ontology (OCHRE). http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html

  • Obrst, L. 2006. What is an ontology? A briefing on the range of semantic models. ontolog forum, 12 and 19 Jan 2006. http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2006_01_12

  • Obrst, L., T. Hughes, and S. Ray. 2006. Prospects and possibilities for ontology evaluation: The view from NCOR. Workshop on Evaluation of Ontologies for the Web (EON2006), Edinburgh, UK, 22 May 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obrst, L., and I. Mani, eds. 2000. Proceedings of the Workshop on Semantic Approximation, Granularity, and Vagueness, A Workshop of the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR’2000, Breckenridge, CO, 11 Apr 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obrst, L, and D. Nichols. 2005. Context and ontologies: Contextual indexing of ontological expressions. AAAI 2005 Workshop on Context and Ontologies, Poster, AAAI 2005, 9–13 July, Pittsburgh, PA. http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_05/05_0903/index.html

  • Obrst, L., G. Whittaker, A. Meng. 1999a. Semantic context for interoperable distributed object systems. Poster, Modeling and Using Context: Second International and Interdisciplinary Conference (Context’99), Trento, Italy, Sep 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obrst, L., G. Whittaker, A. Meng. 1999b. Semantic context for object exchange. Workshop on Reasoning in Context for AI Applications, Patrick Brézillon, Roy Turner, Jean-Charles Pomerol, Elise Turner, co-chairs. AAAI-99, Orlando, FL, July, 1999. Technical Report WS-99-14. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ontolog Forum. http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?

  • Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS-2001), eds. C. Welty, and B. Smith, Ogunquit, Maine, 17–19 Oct 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ontology Summit. 2007. Ontology, taxonomy, folksonomy: Understanding the distinctions. http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007

  • Petrazycki, L. 1955. Law and morality. Partial trans. by H.W. Babb, with an introduction by N.S. Timasheff. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, B. 1991. Basic category theory for computer scientists. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poli, R. Ontology: The categorial stance. See TAO, vol 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poli, R. 1998. Levels. Axiomathes 9(1–2):197–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poli, R. 2001a. The basic problem of the theory of levels of reality. Axiomathes 12(3–4):261–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poli, R. 2001b. Alwis. Ontology for Knowledge Engineers. PhD Thesis, Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poli, R. 2002. Ontological methodology. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 56:639–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poli, R. 2003. Descriptive, formal and formalized ontologies. In Husserl’s logical investigations reconsidered, eds. D. Fisette, 193–210. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poli, R. 2007. Three obstructions: forms of causation, chronotopoids, and levels of reality. Axiomathes 16:1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranganathan, S.R. 1962. Elements of library classification, 3rd edn. New York, NY: Asia Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Restall, G. 2000. An introduction to substructural logics. New York, NY and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, J.E., and A.L. Rector. 2000. GALEN’s model of parts and wholes: Experience and comparisons. Annual Fall Symposium of American Medical Informatics Association, Los Angeles, CA, 714–718. Philadelphia, PA: Hanley and Belfus Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Semy, S., M. Pulvermacher, and L. Obrst. 2005. Toward the use of an upper ontology for U.S. Government and U.S. Military Domains: An evaluation. MITRE Technical Report, MTR 04B0000063, Nov 2005. http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_05/04_1175/index.html

  • Sider, T. 2001. Four-dimensionalism. An ontology of persistence and Time. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, P. 1987. Parts: A study in ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. 2001a. Fiat objects. Topoi 20(2):131–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K., L. Obrst. 1999. Unpacking the semantics of source and usage to perform semantic reconciliation in large-scale information systems. SIGMOD special issue on Semantic Interoperability, eds. A. Sheth, and A. Ouksel, SIGMOD, Mar 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sowa, J. 2000. Knowledge representation: Logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Thomson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO). http://www.ontologyportal.org/

  • Upper Cyc. http://www.cyc.com/cycdoc/vocab/vocab-toc.html

  • Uschold, M., M. Gruninger. 1996. Ontologies: Principles, methods, and applications. The Knowledge Engineering Review 11(2):93–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varzi, A. 2000. Vagueness, logic, and ontology, to appear in The Dialogue. http://www.columbia.edu/~av72/papers/Dialogue_2000.pdf

  • Varzi, A.C. 1998. Basic problems of mereotopology. In Formal ontology in information systems, eds. N. Guarino, 29–38. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varzi, A., and F. Pianesi. 1996a. Events, topology, and temporal relations. The Monist 78(1):89–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varzi, A., and F. Pianesi. 1996b. Refining temporal reference in event structures. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 37(1):71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiederhold, G. 1994. An algebra for ontology composition. Proceedings of 1994 Monterey Workshop on Formal Methods, Sept 1994, U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, 56–61. http://www-db.stanford.edu/pub/gio/paperlist.html

  • Williamson, T. 1998. Vagueness. London and New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    Roberto Poli

  2. The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, USA

    Leo Obrst

Authors
  1. Roberto Poli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leo Obrst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Poli .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipto. Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, Universita di Trento, Via Verdi 26, Trento, 38100, Italy

    Roberto Poli

  2. 23rd Place NE., 13544, Seattle, 98125-3325, Washington, USA

    Michael Healy

  3. Computer Technology Institute, Hellenic Open University &, N. Kazantzaki Str., Patras, 265 00, Greece

    Achilles Kameas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Poli, R., Obrst, L. (2010). The Interplay Between Ontology as Categorial Analysis and Ontology as Technology. In: Poli, R., Healy, M., Kameas, A. (eds) Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8847-5_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation