Michele Pasin / Quotes

General ontology vs regional ontology

Aristotle defined Ontology as the science of being as such: unlike the special sciences, each of which investigates a class of beings and their determinations, Ontology regards “all the species of being qua being and the attributes which belong to it qua being” (Aristotle, Metaphysics, IV, 1). In this sense Ontology tries to answer to the question: What is being? or, in a meaningful reformulation: What are the features common to all beings?

This is what nowadays one would call General Ontology, in contrast with the various Special or Regional Ontologies (of the Biological, the Social, etc.). This distinction corresponds to the Husserlian one between Formal Ontology and Material Ontology [1]. But the Husserlian notion of “formal” does not involve only generality. For Husserl, the task of Formal Ontology is to determinate the conditions of the possibility of the object in general and the individuation of the requirements that every object’s constitution has to satisfy.

Recently, Nino Cocchiarella defined Formal Ontology as the systematic, formal, axiomatic development of the logic of all forms and modes of being [2]. [...] Cocchiarella’s definition is in our opinion particularly pregnant, as it takes into account both meanings of the adjective “formal”: on one side, this is synonymous of “rigorous”, while on the other side it means “related to the forms of being”. Therefore, what Formal Ontology is concerned in is not so much the bare existence of certain objects, but rather the rigorous description of their forms of being, i.e. their structural features. In practice, Formal Ontology can be intended as the theory of the distinctions, which can be applied independently of the state of the world, i.e. the distinctions: among the entities of the world (physical objects, events, regions, quantities of matter...); among the meta-level categories used to model the world (concept, property, quality, state, role, part...).

Saved 26 January 2015 / citeseerx.ist.psu.edu ↗

#formal-ontology #ontology #being #distinction #world #science

Applications of upper level ontologies

Formal ontology as a template to create novel specific domain ontologies Having a formal ontology at your disposal, especially when it consists of a Formal…

Formal Ontology #formal-ontology #natural-language-processing #domain-specific-ontology #ontology

Computational ontology vs formal ontology

Our approach to representing the discipline derives from what computer and information scientists call “formal ontology.” However, we will avoid using this…

From Encyclopedia To Ontology: Toward Dynamic Representation Of The Discipline Of Philosophy #ontology #formal-ontology #computational-ontology #dynamic-ontology #information-scientists #computer

Formal ontology

In philosophy, the term formal ontology is used to refer to an ontology defined by axioms in a formal language with the goal to provide an unbiased (domain-…

Formal Ontology #ontology #formal-ontology #formal-language

The BORO method takes an extensional approach to ontology development

The BORO method is a simple, repeatable process for developing formal ontologies. The method takes an extensional approach to ontology development. The…

Boro Method (wikipedia Contributors) #ontology #multiple-legacy-systems #legacy-systems #ontology-development #formal-ontology

In looking out upon the world, we forget that the world is looking at itself—through our eyes and it’s

After people die, babies are born—and, unless they are automata, every one of them is, just as we ourselves were, the “I” experience coming again into being…

The Book: On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are #world #experience #being

Observer-independent and observer-relative features

There are two distinctions that I want you to be clear about at the very beginning, because they are essential for the argument and because the failure to…

Mind: A Brief Introduction (John R. Searle) #objectivity #ontology #social-sciences #distinction