A knowledge-intensive, integrated approach to problem solving and sustained learning
A knowledge-intensive, integrated approach to problem solving and sustained learning
A translation approach to portable ontology specifications
Knowledge Acquisition - Special issue: Current issues in knowledge modeling
Knowledge engineering: principles and methods
Data & Knowledge Engineering - Special jubilee issue: DKE 25
Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical and computational foundations
Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical and computational foundations
Understanding ontological engineering
Communications of the ACM - Supporting community and building social capital
What Are Ontologies, and Why Do We Need Them?
IEEE Intelligent Systems
Ontological Engineering
IEEE standard upper ontology: a progress report
The Knowledge Engineering Review
The Description Logic Handbook
The Description Logic Handbook
Applied Ontology: Focusing on content
Applied Ontology
Handbook on Ontologies
Taxonomy-based partitioning of the Gene Ontology
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Relationships and relata in ontologies and thesauri: Differences and similarities
Applied Ontology - Ontologies and Terminologies: Continuum or Dichotomy?
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
This article reflects an ongoing effort to systematize the use of terms applied by philosophers and computer scientists in the context of ontology and ontological engineering. We show that a common reference terminology is needed to connect terms in representational artifacts to what they mean ontologically. Without such a reference, statements in and about knowledge representation languages will be ambiguous, both as between various languages and within a single language. We identify problems common to a number of knowledge representation languages used to formalize ontologies. We show that a reference terminology can be used to disambiguate the meanings of some, and to reveal ontological problems in other, evidently confused, statements in and about different representation languages. Our final conclusion is not that our proposed terminology is the ultimate one to serve as a common reference; rather, we argue that it is necessary to have such a standard with well-defined terms linked to an axiomatized theory, if unambiguous cross-paradigm and cross-language communication is to be achieved.