=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2518/paper-FOUST6
|storemode=property
|title=Foundationless Ontologies
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2518/paper-FOUST6.pdf
|volume=Vol-2518
|authors=Michael Grüninger,Megan Katsumi
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/jowo/GruningerK19a
}}
==Foundationless Ontologies==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2518/paper-FOUST6.pdf
Foundationless Ontologies
Michael GRÜNINGER a and Megan KATSUMI a
a Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Canada
Abstract. One of the purported benefits of foundational ontologies is that they fa-
cilitate the design of sharable and reusable domain ontologies. Nevertheless, there
has been little formal analysis of the relationship between foundational and domain
ontologies. In this paper we explore the role of foundational ontologies in axioma-
tizing the intended semantics of the signature of a domain ontology. In particular,
we propose a way of designing domain ontologies such that different foundational
ontologies can be used for the axiomatization. In this sense, the resulting domain
ontologies may be considered to be agnostic of any given foundational ontology.
This work was motivated by the development of the Industrial Ontologies
Foundry, but may also be applied to existing domain ontologies such as the Seman-
tic Sensor Network Ontology.
Keywords. ontology design, upper ontologies, foundational ontologies
1. Introduction
The use of a foundational ontology undoubtedly provides guidance for ontology devel-
opers in the design of their ontologies, particularly if the new ontologies are conceived
as extensions of the foundational ontology. The use of foundational ontologies for on-
tology design should naturally be encouraged, but the choice of a foundational ontology
raises issues of premature ontological commitment; we must also be careful to avoid
pigeon-holing a domain ontology before its requirements are fully known or understood.
Furthermore, the choice of a particular foundational ontology might impede sharability
and reusability with other domain ontologies that use a different foundational ontology,
since navigating between foundational ontologies can be prohibitively difficult.
To address this challenge, we consider whether it might be possible to “swap out”
one foundational ontology for another for the same domain ontology. By extracting the
domain signature-specific module from the domain ontology, it should be possible to re-
place the original foundational ontology with some alternative and by definition, all of
the consequences of the module will remain unchanged, regardless of the foundational
axioms used. The foundationless ontology that results from this exercise serves to effec-
tively capture the intended semantics of the domain while allowing for alternate founda-
tional ontologies to be used interchangeably. This avoids the challenge of studying and
choosing between foundational ontologies in the initial stages of ontology design. In ex-
isting ontologies, it allows for the reversal of a commitment to a foundational ontology,
thus improving the potential for integration with other ontologies. The ontology that re-
sults from this approach is “foundation-agnostic” – it does not require a commitment to a
particular foundational ontology, while at the same time allowing people to use whatever
Copyright c 2019 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution
4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
foundational ontology they like without the need for merging or prior harmonization of
any foundational ontologies.
Following this approach, the choice of foundational ontology only makes a differ-
ence in the case that the required reasoning and scope of concepts extends to include
the foundational concepts, for example, where the competency questions include foun-
dational concepts as well as domain-specific ones. The distinguishing factors for select-
ing a foundational ontology are then “soft” characteristics like usability and possibly
implementation-specific characteristics like the size of the resulting representation. Any
adequate foundational ontology may be used to capture, via some extension, the intended
semantics of a given domain.
Another way of looking at the foundationless ontology approach is that it serves
to clarify the relationship between a particular domain ontology and a set of founda-
tional ontologies. It is often unclear whether or to what extent foundational ontologies
contribute to the required semantics of a given domain ontology. At the root of this is
the question of what role the foundational ontology is intended to play for the domain
ontology. While answers to this question may vary, regardless of the role of the foun-
dational ontology, the challenge of choosing between foundational ontologies should be
addressed. The foundationless ontology illustrates precisely what semantics, if any, from
the foundational ontology contributes to the domain-specific ontology. We conjecture
that it may often be the case that most of the foundational ontology’s axioms serve to
support the high-level design and understanding of the domain ontology but do not con-
tribute to the axiomatization of its required semantics. The extraction of foundationless
ontologies is also a useful task to better understand the intended semantics of a domain,
and more flexibly apply an ontology with various foundational theories.
The key research challenge addressed in this paper is the role of foundational on-
tologies in the axiomatization of sharable and reusable domain ontologies – given a class
of intended structures for a domain ontology, how can we provide an axiomatization of
this class such that the resulting domain ontology can be reused with other foundational
ontologies? We tackle this problem by considering in turn a series of five question:
• What are the intended structures of an ontology?
• Under what conditions can a foundational ontology be used to axiomatize the class
of intended structures Mdomain ?
• Are foundational ontologies necessary for axiomatizing the class of intended struc-
tures Mdomain or can they be axiomatized using only a theory in the signature
σ domain ?
• Can Mdomain be axiomatized using different foundational ontologies?
• Is the adoption of a single foundational ontology for the axiomatization of T domain
necessary to for semantic integration?
All of these questions arose within the development of the Industrial Ontologies
Foundry (IOF), whose mission is the creation of a set of core ontologies that spans the
entire domain of digital manufacturing. This set of ontologies will be non-proprietary
and are expected to serve as the foundation from which other domain-dependent and/or
application ontologies can be derived in modular fashion across all industrial domains
and manufacturing specializations. Different foundational ontologies were advocated for
use in the design of the IOF Ontologies which led to the proposal that one foundational
ontology be selected to the exclusion of others. The foundationless approach outlined in
the current paper is a response against this proposal and a demonstration of the viability
of designing domain ontologies that can be used with multiple foundational ontologies.
2. Intended Semantics of the Domain Ontology
In any ontology design activity, the goal is the specification of a domain ontology
T domain , that is equivalent to the axiomatization of the class of intended structures
Mdomain for the signature σ domain . A key question is how foundational ontologies can be
used to design such domain ontologies.
Question 1. What are the intended structures of an ontology?
When developing or selecting an axiomatization of an ontology for an application
domain, the knowledge engineer typically has some requirements in mind. These re-
quirements for the ontology are specified with respect to the intended semantics of the
terminology; from a mathematical perspective the requirements may be characterized by
the class of structures which capture the intended semantics, and such structures can be
referred to as the required, or intended, structures for the ontology. We therefore need
the class of intended structures if we are to evaluate T domain ([1] [2]).
Foundational ontologies are used to axiomatize the intended semantics of the do-
main signature, not to specify their intended semantics. The specification of intended
semantics must be prior to the axiomatization, and the intended structures for a domain
ontology must be specified in the signature σ domain of the domain ontology.
Definition 1. Monto is an elementary class of structures iff there exists a first-order
theory T such that M ∈ Monto iff M ∈ Mod(T ).
Definition 2. Let L be a first-order language,and let Monto be a class of L-structures.
Monto is a pseudoelementary class of structures iff there is a first-order theory T
with signature L0 such that L ⊆ L0 and M ∈ Mod(T ) iff M |L ∈ Monto .
Loosely speaking, a class of structures is pseudoelementary if it is axiomatizable by
a theory with an expanded signature. For example, in the signature {adj}, the class of
connected graphs (in which adj is the adjacency relation) is not elementary, but this class
is pseudoelementary – connected graphs are reducts of models of a first-order theory
using the expanded signature {adj, R}, where R is an irreflexive and transitive relation
with a minimal element[3].
In the following sections, Mdomain will denote the class of intended structures for the
domain ontology, and we will assume that the class is elementary or pseudoelementary.
3. Using Foundational Ontologies for Domain Ontology Design
In this paper we explore the role of foundational ontologies in the design of sharable and
reusable domain ontologies. In this context, the problem of ontology design becomes:
given a class of structures that captures the intended semantics of the signature of the
domain ontology, provide an axiomatization of this class of structures such that the re-
sulting domain ontology can be used with multiple existing foundational ontologies.
Question 2. Under what conditions can a foundational ontology be used to axiomatize
the class of intended structures Mdomain ?
To address this question, we need to consider the relationship between foundational
ontologies and domain ontologies, in particular, the relationship between the models of
foundational ontologies and the intended structures of the domain ontology.
Definition 3. A class of structures Mdomain is definable by the foundational ontol-
ogy T f oundation iff there is a mapping ϕ : Mdomain → Mod(T f oundation ) and a structure
N ∈ Mdomain with signature σ (T f oundation ) ∪ σ domain such that M ∈ Mod(T f oundation )
is isomorphic to the reduct of N to the signature σ domain (denoted as M ∼ = N |σ domain )
and ϕ(M ) is elementary equivalent to the reduct of N to the signature σ (T f oundation )
(denoted as )N |σ (T f oundation ) .
Thus, Mdomain is definable by the foundational ontology T f oundation iff each structure
in Mdomain is definable in an expansion of a model of T f oundation .
For example, consider the Simple Event Model [4] as the domain ontology and PSL
[5] as the foundational ontology. The work in [6] introduced the technique of ontology
grafting, in which the domain ontology is a theory that is faithfully interpreted by another
ontology.
The following Theorem generalizes this approach:
Theorem 1. Mdomain is definable by the foundational ontology T f oundation iff there
is a set of sentences R f oundation with signature σ (T f oundation ) ∪ σ (T domain ) such that
T h(Mdomain ) and T f oundation are conservatively extended by T f oundation ∪ R f oundation .
Proof. ⇒:) Suppose Mdomain is definable by the foundational ontology T f oundation .
By Definition 3 and Theorem 4 of [7], there exists a theory T that is a con-
servative extension of both T h(Mdomain ) and T f oundation . By Definition 3, the mod-
els of T are structures N with signature σ (T f oundation ) ∪ σ domain such that M ∼ =
N |σ domain and ϕ(M ) is elementary equivalent to N |σ (T f oundation ) . Thus, T has signature
σ (T f oundation ) ∪ σ domain .
⇐:)
Suppose T h(Mdomain ) and T f oundation are conservatively extended by T f oundation ∪
R f oundation . By Theorem 4 of [7], T f oundation ∪ R f oundation is a conservative extension of
T h(Mdomain ) iff every structure M1 in Mdomain is elementarily equivalent to a structure
N that can be expanded to a model M2 of T f oundation ∪ R f oundation . By Definition 3,
Mdomain is definable by T f oundation ∪ R f oundation .
Because T f oundation itself is conservatively extended by T f oundation ∪ R f oundation , ev-
ery model of T f oundation is elementarily equivalent to a structure N that can be expanded
to a model M2 of T f oundation ∪ R f oundation . Thus, By Definition 3, Mdomain is definable
by T f oundation .
The sentences in R f oundation correspond to the domain-specific axioms by which the
foundational ontology is extended to axiomatize Mdomain . Using the terminology of [8],
R f oundation is the residue of T f oundation ∪ R f oundation .
Theorem 1 shows the conditions under which foundational ontologies are sufficient
to axiomatize a domain ontology. We next consider whether domain ontologies can be
axiomatized without the foundational ontologies.
Question 3. Are foundational ontologies necessary for axiomatizing the class of in-
tended structures Mdomain or can they be axiomatized using only a theory in the signature
σ domain ?
The next Theorem shows that the answer to this question is based on the distinction
between elementary and pseudoelementary classes of structures.
Theorem 2. Suppose that the foundational ontology T f oundation axiomatizes Mdomain .
If Mdomain is an elementary class, then there exists a theory T domain in the signature
σ domain that is elementarily equivalent to T h(Mdomain ).
Proof. Suppose that T f oundation ∪ R f oundation ∪ T domain axiomatizes Mdomain , but without
the axioms of the foundational ontology, T domain will have unintended models (in the
signature σ domain ). We will show that this claim is false.
Suppose N ∈ Mod(T domain ) but N 6∈ Mdomain , that is, N is an unintended model
of T domain . There is a sentence ϕ in signature σ domain such that for all M ∈ Mdomain
M |= Φ
T domain 6|= Φ
However, since T f oundation ∪ R f oundation ∪ T domain axiomatizes Mdomain , we have
T f oundation ∪ R f oundation ∪ T domain |= Φ
and T f oundation is not a module of T f oundation ∪ R f oundation ∪ T domain ,
contradicting Theorem 1.
This Theorem shows us that a domain ontology with an elementary class of intended
models is standalone insofar as it is sufficient for axiomatizing its class of intended mod-
els. In the context of a foundational ontology, there might be unintended models, that is,
there might exist unintended models of T f oundation ∪ R f oundation ∪ T domain . Such models
can be eliminated only by extending the residue R f oundation , since both T f oundation and
T domain are modules.
On the other hand, if the class of intended models for the domain ontology are
not elementary but rather form a pseudoelementary class, then any axiomatization of
the intended models requires a theory with an expanded signature, and the foundational
ontology is needed.
4. Modularity of Domain Ontologies
If a foundational ontology is used to axiomatize a domain ontology, a question arises on
whether or not this impedes the sharability and reusability of the domain ontology.
Question 4. Can Mdomain be axiomatized using different foundational ontologies?
Although it is common to align existing domain ontologies with different founda-
tional ontologies, this is typically thought of as an ontology mapping exercise rather than
ontology design. However, the results of the preceding section tell us that we should
instead think of this as a problem of ontology modularization.
4.1. Modularizing an Existing Domain Ontology
It is easy to see from Theorem 1 that Mdomain is axiomatized by distinct foundational
ontologies T1f oundation , T2f oundation iff there exist theories T1 ,T2 such that
• T1f oundation and T h(Mdomain ) are modules of T1 ,
• T2f oundation and T h(Mdomain ) are modules of T2 .
that is, T h(Mdomain ) is a module of both theories T1 and T2 .
We can treat the domain ontologies as modules in a larger ontology that imports the
foundational ontology of one’s choice. For example, let T1f oundation and T2f oundation be two
foundational ontologies, and let T domain be the axiomatization of the domain ontology
using only the signature σ domain (i.e. this axiomatization contains no classes or relations
from any external ontologies, including any foundational ones). For each combination of
T domain and a foundational ontology, there will be a residue, that is, a set of sentences in
the combined signature that are used to ”bridge”/”align” T domain with the foundational
ontology.
Let R1 be the set of such sentences with respect to T1f oundation and let R2 be the set of
such sentences with respect to T2f oundation . Since T domain is a module of both T domain ∪
R1 ∪ T1f oundation and T domain ∪ R2 ∪ T2f oundation , both axiomatizations agree on the set of
sentences in the signature σ domain .
We can illustrate this with the Semantic Sensor Network (SSN) Ontology [9]. The
axiomatization of the SSN Ontology is included what the designers considered to be
an alignment with DOLCE-Ultralite as a way to make their ontological commitments
explicit. The signature of the SSN Ontology is comprised of 41 unary relations (classes)
and 39 binary relations (object properties). The SSN Ontology can be decomposed into
a module T ssn corresponding to the SSN signature (which is equivalent to the ontology
depicted in Figure 1 of [9]), a module consisting of DOLCE-Ultralite, and a residue
Rssn
dolce consisting of sentences in the combined signature.
The case of Event-Model F [10] illustrates the importance of understanding the in-
tended models. This ontology is axiomatized as an extension of DOLCE-Ultralite+DnS,
rather than the full first-order theory of the DOLCE Ontology. The only nontrivial mod-
ule with the signature of the domain ontology is the axiomatization of the taxonomy, and
there are few additional axioms. However, the ontological commitments of this ontology
are debatable, as it treats events as social objects, which is quite different from other
foundational ontologies.
4.2. Implicit Specification of Intended Models
In some cases, there is no explicit specification of the intended models Mdomain ; instead,
a foundational ontology is used to write axioms that are implicitly satisfied by the in-
tended models. How does such an approach work if multiple foundational ontologies are
used?
We begin by taking a closer look at the relationship between the foundational ontol-
ogy and domain ontology.
Theorem 3. Let T f oundation be a foundational ontology and let R be a set of sentences in
the signature σ (T f oundation ) ∪ σ domain .
If T f oundation ∪ R is consistent, then there exists a unique (up to logical equiva-
lence) theory T domain in the signature σ domain such that Mod(T domain ) is definable by
T f oundation .
Proof. Suppose T f oundation ∪ R is consistent.
There exists a unique (up to logical equivalence) theory T domain in the signature
σ domain which is the strongest theory such that
T f oundation ∪ R |= T domain
It is easy to see that T domain is conservatively extended by T f oundation ∪ R.
By Theorem 1, Mod(T domain ) is definable by T f oundation .
Since T f oundation ∪ R ∪ T domain is a conservative extension of T domain , we will refer
to T domain as the domain module for T f oundation . By Theorem 3, we can assign a domain
ontology with signature σ domain to each foundational ontology.
Theorem 4. Let T f oundation be a foundational ontology and let R be a set of sentences in
the signature σ (T f oundation ) ∪ σ domain .
If T domain is the domain module of T f oundation and Tidomain ≤ T ∗ , then T f oundation ∪
Ri ∪ T ∗ is a conservative extension of T ∗ .
Proof. By Theorem 3, T domain is the maximal module of T f oundation ∪ R with signa-
ture σ domain , so that T f oundation ∪ R 6|= T ∗ and for any sentence Φ in signature σ domain ,
T f oundation ∪ R |= Φ iff T ∗ |= Φ, and T f oundation ∪ R ∪ T ∗ is a conservative extension of
T ∗.
We can therefore extend the domain module for T f oundation with sentences in the
signature σ domain to create a new ontology that is also a module of the ontology that
extends T f oundation .
Now suppose that we have a set of different foundational ontologies T1 , ..., Tn . Re-
member that we are evaluating the use of foundational ontologies T1 , ..., Tn for proposing
the axioms in T domain – we are not comparing the foundational ontologies themselves.
Furthermore, the challenge is with the axiomatization of the intended models of T domain ,
not the intended models of Ti ∪ Ri ∪ Tidomain for some foundational ontology Ti . This
problem is not solved by selecting a particular foundational ontology, but rather by deter-
mining the intended models of T domain . The question is therefore – how are these these
ontologies related to the unique theory T domain that axiomatizes the intended semantics
of the signature of the domain?
For each foundational ontology Ti , there will axioms Ri that are used to either pro-
vide conservative definitions for domain terms or to extend Ti with axioms that constrain
the interpretation of domain terms. Let Tidomain be the strongest theory in the signature
of T domain such that
Ti ∪ Ri |= Tidomain
Given a set of foundational ontologies Ti , how are the ontologies Tidomain related to
each other? From Theorem 3, it is straightforward to observe that for two foundational
ontologies T1 , T2 , exactly one of the following cases must hold:
1. T1domain and T2domain are logically equivalent.
2. T1domain and T2domain are mutually inconsistent, and there exists a similarity T0domain .
3. T1domain and T2domain are independent of each other, and there exists an ontology
T0domain that is a consistent extension of T1domain and T2domain .
The problem is that in general the Tidomain will all be different from each other,
so that it appears that there is no agreement on a common ontology T domain . However,
this problem is not solved by selecting a particular foundational ontology, but rather
by determining the intended models of T domain . The question is therefore – how are
these these ontologies related to the unique theory T domain that axiomatizes the intended
semantics of the domain terminology? Considering the task of evaluating the relationship
between Tidomain and T domain , there are four cases:
1. If Tidomain is weaker than T domain , then there exist unintended models of Tidomain .
We can extend Tidomain as appropriate with sentences in the signature of T domain to
eliminate these unintended models. Furthermore, it follows that this extension is
consistent with the foundational ontology Ti .
2. If Tidomain is stronger than T domain , then there exist omitted models of T domain . This
is a problem, unless Ti ∪ Ri can somehow be weakened to allow these models, and
hence be equivalent to T domain .
3. If Tidomain ∪ T domain is inconsistent, then we have a big problem – the foundational
ontology Ti f oundation cannot be used with the domain ontology T domain .
4. If Tidomain and T domain are independent of each other, then their combination will
be too strong (and omit models of T domain ) but their similarity will be too weak
(and have unintended models). This is a problem similar to the second case –
since omitted models exist, we cannot simply extend the foundational ontology,
but rather must find a subtheory (which will lead to the introduction of unintended
models of the foundational ontology).
These four cases are objective ways of determining the adequacy of an foundational
ontology Ti for axiomatizing the intended semantics of the domain signature. Note that
in only one of these cases is Ti adequate (i.e. the case in which Tidomain is weaker than
T domain ); all of the other cases have problems. Furthermore, the relationships between
the Tidomain (and the foundational ontologies Ti in general) are irrelevant. A foundational
ontology is adequate if and only if Tidomain can be extended to T domain .
5. Reusability
One of the purported benefits of a foundational ontology is that domain ontologies ax-
iomatized by the same foundational ontology are sharable and reusable. Since we have
already seen that a domain ontology can be axiomatized by different foundational on-
tologies, we need to determine whether reusability is still supported.
Question 5. Is the adoption of a single foundational ontology for the axiomatization of
T domain necessary to for semantic integration?
An adequate answer to this question requires a formal definition of semantic inte-
gration.
Definition 4. Two ontologies T1 , T2 are semantically integrated iff there exists a faithful
interpretation of T1 in T2 and a faithful interpretation of T2 in T1 .
For domain ontologies that are axiomatized by different foundational ontologies, we
cannot satisfy this definition of semantic integration unless the foundational ontologies
themselves are mutually faithful interpretable. For foundationless ontologies, we have
the following more restricted notion of integration as a straightforward consequence of
Theorem 1:
Theorem 5. Suppose Mdomain is axiomatized by both an extension T1 of the foundational
ontology T1f oundation and by an extension T2 of the foundational ontology T2f oundation .
For any sentence Φ ∈ σ domain ,
T1 |= Φ ⇔ T2 |= Φ
In other words, both ontologies agree on sentences with the signature of the do-
main ontology, so that we have a form of partial semantic integration that is restricted
to the domain ontology but which does not carry over to the foundational ontologies
themselves.
6. Conclusions
In this paper we have proposed an approach to designing domain ontologies in a manner
that does not require a commitment to a particular foundational ontology, while at the
same time allowing people to use whatever foundational ontology they like without the
need for merging or prior harmonization of any foundational ontologies. Although this
has the benefit of improving the sharability and reusability of domain ontologies, we
conclude this paper by addressing some of the limitations of the approach.
One problem is the specification of the intended semantics of the domain ontology
without using a prior set of ontological commitments. Users often employ a foundational
ontology with which they are familiar when articulating the intended semantics of their
terminology. Even the competency questions that they pose can be contain an implicit
bias to one foundational ontology or another. This was evident with Event Model F,
in which there seems to be no specification of the intended semantics of events that is
independent of DOLCE Ultralite+DnS.
Another question is the scope of the foundational ontologies – which concepts be-
long to a foundational ontology and which belong to a domain ontology? For example, do
any axioms about the ordering of timepoints and the relationship to time intervals form a
module of the foundational ontology? If they do not, can be they be considered to be part
of the domain ontology? This related to the question of whether or not foundational on-
tologies can be partially reused – can modules from different foundational ontologies be
combined together to form a new foundational ontology? Such radical modularity would
allow more flexibility in applications where independently designed ontologies need to
be used together (e.g. OWL-Time together with DOLCE, SUMO, or BFO).
Is the foundationless approach best applied to existing ontologies for analysis and to
facilitate integration with other ontologies or is it best used to design new domain ontolo-
gies to ensure that they are sharable and reusable with multiple foundational ontologies?
Our claim is that we can use the foundationless approach at design time to ensure that
the domain ontology is sharable and reusable with multiple foundational ontologies. If a
domain ontology has been designed without the use of a foundational ontology, it might
be the case that the foundationless approach arrives at the same solution as those efforts
that align the ontology with existing foundational ontologies.
References
[1] B. Aameri and M. Grüninger. A new look at ontology correctness. In L. Morgenstern, T. Patkos,
and R. Sloan, editors, Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning, pages 2–8. AAAI Spring
Symposium, 2015.
[2] M. Katsumi and M. Grüninger. Theorem proving in the ontology lifecycle. In KEOD 2010 - Proceedings
of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development, Valencia, Spain,
October 25-28, pages 37–49, 2010.
[3] H.-D. Ebbinghaus and J. Flum. Finite Model Theory, Second Edition. Springer Verlag, 1999.
[4] W. R. van Hage, V. Malaisé, R. Segers, L. Hollink, and G. Schreiber. Design and use of the simple event
model (SEM). Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 9(2):128 – 136,
2011. Provenance in the Semantic Web.
[5] M. Gruninger. Using the PSL ontology. In S. Staab, editor, Handbook of Ontologies, Second Edition,
pages 419–431, 2009.
[6] M. Katsumi and M. Grüninger. Using PSL to extend and evaluate event ontologies. In Rule Technolo-
gies: Foundations, Tools, and Applications, pages 225–240. Springer, 2015.
[7] P. Veloso and S. Veloso. On conservative and expansive extensions. O que nos faz pensar, 3(04):87–106,
1991.
[8] B. Aameri, M. Grüninger, and C. Chui. Anti-modules. In O. K. et al, editor, Proceedings of the Joint
Ontology Workshops 2016 Episode 2: The French Summer of Ontology co-located with the 9th Interna-
tional Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2016), Annecy, France, volume
1660 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, 2016.
[9] M. Compton, P. Barnaghi, L. Bermudez, R. Garcia-Castro, O. Corcho, S. Cox, J. Graybeal,
M. Hauswirth, C. Henson, A. Herzog, V. Huang, K. Janowicz, W. D. Kelsey, D. L. Phuoc, L. Lefort,
M. Leggieri, H. Neuhaus, A. Nikolov, K. Page, A. Passant, A. Sheth, and K. Taylor. The SSN Ontology
of the W3C semantic sensor network incubator group. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on
the World Wide Web, 17:25–32, 2012.
[10] A. Scherp, T. Franz, C. Saathoff, and S. Staab. F–a model of events based on the foundational ontology
DOLCE+DnS Ultralite. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Knowledge capture,
pages 137–144. ACM, 2009.