Advertisement

Identity and Subsumption

  • Nicola Guarino
  • Christopher Welty
Part of the Information Science and Knowledge Management book series (ISKM, volume 3)

Abstract

The intuitive simplicity of the so-called is-a (or subsumption) relationship has led to widespread ontological misuse. Where previous work has focused largely on the semantics of the relationship itself, we concentrate here on the ontological nature of its arguments, in order to tell whether a single is-a link is ontologically well-founded. For this purpose, we introduce some techniques based on the philosophical notions of identity, unity, and essence, which have been adapted to the needs of taxonomy design. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these techniques by taking real examples of poorly structured taxonomies and revealing cases of invalid generalization.

Keywords

Physical Object Essential Property Formal Ontology Identity Criterion Actual Existence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akiba, K. (2000). Identity is simple. American Philosophical Quarterly, 37, 389–404.Google Scholar
  2. Brachman, R. (1983). What IS-A is and isn’t: An analysis of taxonomic links in semantic networks. IEEE Computer, 16(10), 30–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carrara, M., & Giaretta, P. (2001). Identity criteria and sortal concepts. In B. Smith & C. Welty (Eds.), Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS2001), 234–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Casati, R., & Varzi, A. C. (1994). Holes and Other Superficialities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. Davidson, D. (1980). The individuation of events. In Essays on Actions and Events, 163–180. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., & Oltramari, A. (2001). Understanding top-level ontological distinctions. In A. Gomez Perez, M. Gruninger, H. Stuckenschmidt, & M. Uschold (Eds.), Proceedings of Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing (IJCAI2001), 26–33.Google Scholar
  7. Goldstein, R. C., & Storey, V. C. (1999). Data abstractions: Why and how? Data and Knowledge Engineering, 29, 293–311.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guarino, N. (1998). Formal ontology and information systems. In N. Guarino (Ed.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems: Proceedings (FOIS ’98), 3–15. Amended version available: <http://www.ladseb.pd.cnr.it/infor/Ontology/Papers/FOIS98.pdf> [2001, October 9].Google Scholar
  9. Guarino, N., & Welty, C. (2000a). A formal ontology of properties. Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, 97–112.Google Scholar
  10. Guarino, N., & Welty, C. (2000b). Identity, unity, and individuality: Towards a formal toolkit for ontological analysis. Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial In tell igen ce (ECAI-2000), 211–215.Google Scholar
  11. Guarino, N., & Welty, C. (2000c). Conceptual Modeling and Ontological Analysis. AAAI-00 Tutorial Notes. Available: < http://www.cs.vassar.edu/faculty/welty/aaai-2000/ > [2001, October 9].Google Scholar
  12. Guarino, N., & Welty, C. (in press). Supporting ontological analysis of taxonomic relationships. Data and Knowledge Engineering.Google Scholar
  13. Hirsch, E. (1982). The Concept of Identity. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hirst, G. (1991). Existence assumptions in knowledge representation. Artificial Intelligence, 49, 199–242.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hughes, G. E., & Cresswell, M. J. (1996). A New Introduction to Modal Logic. London: Routledge.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaplan, A. (2001). Towards a consistent logical framework for ontological analysis. In B. Smith & C. Welty (Eds.), Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS2001), 244–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis, D. (1983). New work for a theory of universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61, 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lowe, E. J. (1989). Kinds of Being: A Study of Individuation, Identity and the Logic of Sortal Terms. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Lowe, E. J. (1998). The Possibility of Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Nirenburg, S. & Raskin, V. (2001). Ontological semantics, formal ontology, and ambiguity. In B. Smith & C. Welty (Eds.), Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS2001), 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Noonan, H. (Ed.) (1993). Identity. Aldershot, England and Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
  22. Simons, P. (1987). Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  23. Storey, V. C. (1993). Understanding semantic relationships. Very Large Databases Journal, 2, 455–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Strawson, P. F. (1959). Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicola Guarino
    • 1
  • Christopher Welty
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Systems Science and Biomedical Engineering of the Italian National Research Council (LADSEB-CNR)PadovaItaly
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentVassar CollegePoughkeepsieUSA

Personalised recommendations