Representing a reference foundational ontology of events in SROIQ

Benevides, Alessander Botti; Bourguet, Jean-Rémi; Guizzardi, Giancarlo; Peñaloza, Rafael; Almeida, João Paulo A.

doi:10.3233/ao-190214

Cited by 25 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…UFO is divided in three parts representing different aspects of reality: Aendurants (dependent and independent objects and their types), B -perdurants (events and situations), and Csocial entities, with notions such as beliefs, desires, intentions, etc. UFO-A has been formalized in First-Order Modal Logics [33,36,37] (e.g., the microtheory of endurant universals contains 22 terms and 31 axioms [36]; the microtheory theory dealing with relations contains 25 terms and 20 axioms) [19]; UFO-B has been completely formalized in First-Order Logics (26 terms and 185 axioms) with a (partial) translation to SROIQ [4].…”

Section: Foundational Ontologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foundational ontologies meet ontology matching: A survey

Santos

Vieira

Schmidt

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ontology matching is a research area aimed at finding ways to make different ontologies interoperable. Solutions to the problem have been proposed from different disciplines, including databases, natural language processing, and machine learning. The role of foundational ontologies for ontology matching is an important one, as they provide a well-founded reference model that can be shared across domains. It is multifaceted and with room for development. This paper presents an overview of the different tasks involved in ontology matching that consider foundational ontologies. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of existing proposals and highlight the challenges to be addressed in the future.

show abstract

Section: Foundational Ontologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foundational ontologies meet ontology matching: A survey

Santos

Vieira

Schmidt

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Things and experiences have value to people because they allow them to achieve their goals. For example, an object has value to an agent because it has properties (e.g., capacities, "affordances", i.e., ultimately, dispositions) that can be leveraged to enact events that, in turn, bring about situations that contribute to satisfy that agent's goals [2,16]. In summary, the more an event makes progress towards achieving an agent's goals (i.e., the more the situation it brings about contributes to satisfying those goals), the more valuable it is to that agent.…”

Section: Value Risk and Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…UFO is divided into three incrementally layered compliance sets: UFO-A, an ontology of endurants (objects) [12], UFO-B, an ontology of events (perdurants) [16], and UFO-C, an ontology of social entities built on the top of UFO-A and UFO-B, which addresses terms related to the spheres of intentional and social things [13,17]. For an in-depth discussion and formalization, one should refer to, for example, [2,7,12,14].…”

Section: The Unified Foundational Ontologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling the Emergence of Value and Risk in Game Theoretical Approaches

Amaral

Porello²,

Sales

et al. 2021

Advances in Enterprise Engineering XIV

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Game theory is largely about interactions of agents whose decisions affect each other. The combination of agents' actions corresponds to outcomes, which may impact agents' goals, either positively or negatively. The analysis of the probable consequences and expected utilities of all possible outcomes is fundamental to support agents when deciding whether to engage in a certain strategy. In this paper, we move in this direction by initiating the investigation of the ontological foundation of the emergence of value and risk from outcomes in game theoretical approaches. In order to understand the influence of these forces over outcomes, a precise and rigorous conceptualization, based on foundational ontologies, is needed. To this aim, we present and discuss here a preliminary ontological modeling of basic concepts of game theory, as well as the relation to value, risk and outcomes.

show abstract

“…In a series of papers [4,19,20], we have proposed UFO-L, a core ontology of legal relations grounded in the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) [21]. UFO is a formal ontology composed of three parts: UFO-A, which is an ontology of endurants [22]; UFO-B, which is an ontology of perdurants [23]; and UFO-C, which is an ontology of social and intentional entities. UFO-L explicitly represents and articulates TCR in terms of the ontological theory of relations proposed by Guarino and Guizzardi [24] (which is a constituent micro-theory of UFO-A), and by reusing from UFO-B and UFO-C.…”

Section: Alexy's Theory and Ufo-lmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the sequel, we present one of these patterns, which will be instrumental to our analysis in Section 4. This pattern, termed the Right-Duty to an Action Legal Relator (P1-RDA-LR) [26] is depicted in…”

Section: Alexy's Theory and Ufo-lmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legal Theories and Judicial Decision-Making: An Ontological Analysis

Griffo

Almeida

Guizzardi³

2020

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we expose the legal theories underlying two important classes of Legal Core Ontologies and show how these ontologies inherit both limitations and benefits (such as explanatory power) of their underlying theories. We do that with the help of a real case study in which we have normative omission and collision of principles. We use this case study to conduct an ontological analysis of the support for judicial decision-making in LKIF-Core (representing Kelsen’s Pure Theory of the Law) and UFO-L (representing Robert Alexy’s Theory of Constitutional Rights). We show that UFO-L is able to articulate the semantics of the content of judicial decisions by making explicit the individual’s legal positions that are raised in argumentation along a legal process. The same cannot be said of LKIF-Core that is based on the Kelsenian stance and focuses on the representation of general norms (norm types) and subsumption of facts to these norms.

show abstract

Representing a reference foundational ontology of events in SROIQ

Cited by 25 publications

References 20 publications

Foundational ontologies meet ontology matching: A survey

Foundational ontologies meet ontology matching: A survey

Modeling the Emergence of Value and Risk in Game Theoretical Approaches

Legal Theories and Judicial Decision-Making: An Ontological Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About