BFO/DOLCE Primitive Relation Comparison

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONSuccessful integration of domain ontology types with those of an upper ontology allows for cross-domain reasoning and overall data integration, facilitating progress in life sciences research and health care. BFO 1 , Basic Formal Ontology, and DOLCE 2 , Descriptive Ontology for Linguistic and Cognitive Engineering, are two widely used upper ontologies, especially for the development of ontologies in the biomedical sciences. While BFO is based in realism, DOLCE takes perceptual experience into account. For BFO, these axioms are formalized within the Relation Ontology (RO) 3 , which is a part of the collaborative science-based Open Biomedical Ontologies (OBO) 4 Foundry effort. BFO holds true to realism by attempting to capture what actually exists and occurs in the world, independent of epistemological concerns.This paper provides a comparison of the primitive relations and respective axioms defined for BFO and DOLCE, preceded by a brief discussion of their original treatment in the philosophical literature. Note that BFO uses the terms continuant and occurrent-while DOLCE uses endurant and perdurant-to denote entities that persist and those that happen in time, respectively.

Aplicación de técnicas de balanceo de línea para equilibrar las cargas de trabajo en el área de almacenaje de una bodega de almacenamiento.

“…Otro gran personaje que aportó grandes investigaciones a este tipo de problemas en la línea de ensamble es Scholl (2008), quien propuso un problema que se refirió a la dificultad de la secuencia dependiente de los problemas de balanceo de la línea de ensamble (SALBP) que hacen referencia a que cada vez que una tarea j se realiza después de que la tarea i se ha terminado, su estándar de tiempo t se incrementa [10].…”

Addressing Issues in Foundational Ontology Mediation

“…We agree with bfo:SpatialRegion ↔ dolce:space-region and bfo:TemporalRegion ↔ dolce:temporal-region, and use this equivalence, too. Seyed (Seyed, 2009) examined only three relations-dependency, quality, and constitution-and found that they are different in DOLCE and BFO. The basic numbers of the alignments are included in Table 6.…”

“…By this, we mean comparing their classes, properties and relations. Some work on comparing the primitive relations of BFO (i.e., the Relation Ontology (RO)) and DOLCE has been done (Seyed, 2009) where it is found that the philosophies behind the foundational ontologies affect the way the relations are modelled. For instance, BFO is based on realist principles and has no abstract entities while GFO is both descriptive and realist in nature and allows abstract entities in an ontology, and BFO's parthood relation has part does not consider abstract entities, while GFO has a parthood relation abstract has part that considers abstract entities at a higher-level than its has part relation.…”

“…There are 14 alignments common between these three ontologies, which is displayed in Table 5. The manual alignments were aided by the GFO documentation (Herre, 2010) and checked against the alignments proposed by (Temal et al, 2010;Seyed, 2009). The GFO documentation (Herre, 2010) contains a list of similarities between GFO and DOLCE which helped with the alignment process.…”

“…Its three main processes are alignment, mapping, and merging (de Bruijn et al, 2006). There are only few paper-based alignments of foundational ontologies, being between GFO and DOLCE (Herre, 2010) and between DOLCE and BFO (Seyed, 2009;Temal et al, 2010), which, however, are partial, with older versions of the ontologies, informal, and/or aligned but not mapped. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic comparison of the contents of foundational ontologies has been done, nor full alignments, let alone providing consistent mappings.…”