BORO Ontology C-FORS Summer School in Foundational Ontology (C-FORS 2025) 23 May 2025 , University of Oslo, Norway Chris Partridge, Chief Ontologist, BORO Solutions Schedule {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} Morning Sessions 9:00 - 9:05 Session 0 – Introduction 9:05 - 9:45 Session 1 – Context 10:00 - 10:45 Session 2 – BORO Ontology 11:00 - 12:00 Session 3 – Analysis Tools Afternoon Sessions 1:15 - 3:30 Session 1 – Practical Examples 3:30 - 5:00 Session 2 – Examples Discussion / Presentation 2 NOTE: ~ tl;dr convention Cannot fit the background details into the presentation, so ~ tl;dr == don’t read now: reading matter for later review if anyone is interested OTOH you could just ask your favourite LLM  3 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet , consectetur adipiscing elit , sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua . Ut enim ad minim veniam , quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat . Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur . Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident , sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum . ~ tl;dr text space ~ tl;dr icon Structure About Broad approach BORO genealogy Characterising the BORO Foundational Ontology Ontology – as ontological categories Ontology – as everything that exists Ontological architecture – as bricks in a wall Characterising the bCLEARer methodology 4 About Broad approach BORO Genealogy Broad approach Broad approach: tool or product One can broadly divide the ways in which ontologies (including foundational ontologies) can be promulgated into two: toolkit-based: toolkit for ontological analysis does not preclude reuse of prior work (patterns) in fact, it is encouraged enables a flexible approach that can be tailored to each project product-based: pre-built reference ontologies ontological analysis is done in advance – and packaged a particularly strong version of this is: standard ontologies aim to implement globally raises concerns about premature standardisation See: Partridge, C. (2023). Avoiding premature standardisation: Balancing innovation and conformity. OntoCommons 2023, Second Global Workshop, Oslo, Norway. BORO has adopted the first approach - toolkit-based: developing toolkits (including patterns) for ontological analysis this does not exclude (as we shall see) the toolkit’s use to develop product-based reference ontologies Motivation for this choice is agility goal: to speed up evolution allow the approach to be flexibly tailored to a variety of situations 7 BORO Genealogy BORO genealogy 1. Introduction The Business Object Reference Ontology BORO has chosen to adopt a closer integration with philosophy than other ontologies in the information systems domain … also, unlike them, it emerged from and was developed in commercial projects rather than in academia BORO includes a foundational (or upper) ontology and a closely intertwined methodology for information systems (IS) re-engineering (Partridge, 1996), hence the term BORO refers to both the ontology and the methodology . BORO was originally conceived in the late 1980s to address a particular need for a solid legacy re-engineering process and then evolved to address a wider need for developing enterprise systems in a ‘better way’; in other words, in a way that … enable[ed] higher levels of reuse and, as a consequence, capable of reducing the effort and cost of (re-)developing, maintaining and interoperating enterprise systems. It was eventually publicly documented in (Partridge, 1996) de Cesare, S. and Partridge, C. 2016. BORO as a Foundation to Enterprise Ontology. Journal of Information Systems. 30 (2), pp. 83-112. https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-51428 Partridge, C. 1996. Business Objects: Re-Engineering for Re-Use, Butterworth-Heinemann. 9 style.visibility style.visibility style.visibility BORO components BORO has two closely intertwined components BORO Foundational Ontology a foundational (or upper) ontology bCLEARer a methodology systematically mining (re-engineering) the semantics from information systems The two frameworks validate and inform each other top-down BORO Foundational Ontology guides the bottom-up framework bottom-up bCLEARer framework validates the whole model 10 BORO FO - top-down framework bCLEARer - bottom-up framework Toolkit can be deployed across various exploitation routes transform assess build has the application already been deployed? is there a commercial application available in the market? has it already been selected? standard needs to be implemented in application? sustain target requires a standard? requirement semantics composition mereology classification external identifiers content standardise configure 11 Example programme: analysis of effort 12 See: Partridge, C. (2017, December 8). Dagstuhl Commercial Introductions—BORO Solutions . Dagstuhl Seminar 17492 Multi-Level Modelling, Dagstuhl , Germany. Example programme: work package type 13 See: Partridge, C. (2017, December 8). Dagstuhl Commercial Introductions—BORO Solutions . Dagstuhl Seminar 17492 Multi-Level Modelling, Dagstuhl , Germany. IES/HQDM Ongoing BORO development 2010 Using BORO tools to develop reference models 1990 2000 2020 OMG UPDM 2 UAF 2025 DODAF DM2 bCLEARer MODAF/MODEM IDEAS ISO 15926 : Part 2 BORO Foundational Ontology 14 Mapping interest in the standards community: focus on foundational ontology reveals ‘corporate’ preferences (myopia?) Characterising the BORO foundational ontology Characterising the BORO foundational ontology Three ways ontological categories bare Quinean structure broad ontological architecture (and patterns) 16 Ontology – as ontological categories An ontology is a specification of the ontological categories Ontological categories have along history in ontology recent example “It is a commonplace that the word ‘ontology’ is used both as a mass term and a count noun. When it is used as a mass term, it denotes a certain discipline, a certain subfield of philosophy or of metaphysics — just that discipline that I have been attempting to give an account of. When it is used as a count noun, it is used to refer to certain philosophically interesting answers to the ontological question. If my account of ontology is right, an ontology is a specification of the ontological categories or of some of the higher ones.” Van Inwagen, P. (2021). What is an Ontological Category? In Disputatio (Vol. 10, pp. 241–261). 18 BORO’s ontological categories BORO has three ontological categories Individuals Sets Tuples Everything that exists belongs to one and only one of these categories Each category is formally distinguished by its criterion of identity all the criteria of identity are extensional for more detail on BORO’s approach to categories, see: Partridge, C. (2022). Top-Level Categories: Categories for the Top-Level Ontology of the Information Management Framework. https://www.academia.edu/124916664/ 19 BORO’s ontological categories’ grounding relations 20 {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} grounding relation category place 1 category place 2 parts-wholes individuals individuals elements-sets objects sets tuple-places (objects) tuples {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} grounding relation category place 1 category place 2 sub-super-sets sets sets derived grounding relations foundational grounding relations Each grounding relation is formally distinguished by its criterion of identity We look at these in more detail in the next section, when we look at construction. Fine, K. (2010). Towards a Theory of Part: Journal of Philosophy, 107(11) Ontological category: individuals Individuals – Criterion of Identity Takes individuals as mereologically extensional no two things can have exactly the same parts (if two things have the same parts, they are the same thing) In the background is classical mereology See: Varzi, Achille, "Mereology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/mereology/. 22 Classical mereology Also called Classical Extensional Mereology (CEM) or General Extensional Mereology (GEM) Stems from the work of Leśniewski (1916, 1927–1931) and of Leonard and Goodman (1940) formalisation is well understood – a standard “This theory is by now well known and has been studied axiomatically, algebraically , and set-theoretically .” Cotnoir, A. J., & Varzi, A. C. (2021). Mereology (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198749004.001.0001 also see: Florio, S., & Linnebo , Ø. (2022). Core Constructional Ontology: The Foundation for the Top-Level Ontology of the Information Management Framework . Accepts Universalism (also known as Conjunctivism , or Collectivism) the thesis that mereological composition is unrestricted. g iven any collection of individuals, then their mereological fusion also exists this entails Extensionalism 23 Commitment to mereological extensionalism Has structure For example, (Mereological) Universalism entails Extensionalism Extensionalism is the thesis that sameness of composition is sufficient for identity. More precisely: (E) No two things have exactly the same proper parts (unless they are atomic, i.e., have no proper parts at all) Universalism (also known as Conjunctivism , or Collectivism) is the thesis that mereological composition is unrestricted. More precisely: (U) Any non-empty collection of things has a fusion, i.e., something that has all those things as parts and has no part that is disjoint from each of them. Clearly these two theses are not equivalent. They are, however, more closely related than one might think. For while (E) does not entail (U), the converse entailment holds Varzi, A. C. (2009). Universalism entails Extensionalism. Analysis, 69(4), 599–604. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anp102 24 Fleshing out individuals One iconography for stratification: (see details in survey paper) temporal entities spatial entities e ntities more stratified supersubstantival objects more unified happens at web-based: https://digitaltwinhub.co.uk/a-survey-of-top-level-ontologies/#a_survey_of_TLOs_contents This involves looking at the ontological choices 25 Stratification: 4D Ontologies’ unifying choices {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} category type choice 4D Ontologies stratification space-time unifying or separating unifying locations-objects unifying or separating unifying properties-objects unifying or separating unifying endurants-occurrents unifying or separating unifying immaterial-material unifying or separating unifying The BORO Foundational Ontology is a ‘4D Ontology’ 4D Ontologies’ unifying choices detailed in top level survey As we know, some choices multiply entities, others reduce them. One thing that characterizes 4D Ontologies is that they are (from the framework perspective) maximally unifying. Motivation: the presumed benefits of parsimony and cost of separation. No loss of ability to support information requirements. 26 (physical) objects locations (physical) object 1 super-substantival objects super-substantival (physical) objects super-substantival (physical) object 1 (unified) entities (separated) entities location 1 unified separated Recall: locations example - HMELR test HMELR 1 2 27 Additionally - possible worlds “4.3.5 Possibilia: actual or possible worlds ... The TLO needs to provide an account of such objects. In this regard, there is traditionally one major choice to be made. This is whether to limit existence to the actual world or allow it to range over (all) possible worlds. If one adopts a possible worlds approach, then talk of possible objects becomes talk about objects in possible worlds. The possible meeting that did not happen in this world happened in some other possible world. The planned building that was not built in this actual world was built in some other possible world. If one restricts oneself to the actual world, one needs to develop alternative explanations for these objects.” In BORO’s approach, individuals are the (up to) four-dimensional extensions across all possible worlds 28 4-Dimensionalism Background See also: West, M. (2021, April 22). The Basics of 4-Dimensionalism and the Role it Can Take in Supporting Large Scale Data Integration. https://borosolutions.net/basics-4-dimensionalism-and-role-it-can-take-supporting-large-scale-data-integration The original 3D position {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} Author Document Comment Aristotle On the Heavens a solid has magnitude "in three ways and beyond these there is no other magnitude because the three are all." Physics [ IV, 1] in the context of motion, there are six "dimensions", dividing each of the three into two opposites, "up and down, before and behind, right and left," these terms being taken relatively. Simplicius Simplicii in Aristotelis De Caelo Connnentaria notes "it is possible to take only three lines that are mutually perpendicular, two by which the plane is defined and a third measuring depth so that if there were any other distance after the third it would ne entirely without measure and without definition." John Wallis Treatise of Algebra (1685) “For Length, Breadth and Thickness, take up the whole of Space. Nor can our Fansie imagine how there should be a Fourth Local Dimension beyond these Three.” As with many things, started with the Ancient Greeks – and lasted over a millennia. 30 Early appearances of 4D Cajori , Florian (1926). "Origins of Fourth Dimension Concepts". The American Mathematical Monthly. 33 (8): 397–406. {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} Year Author Document Comment 1754 D'Alembert Encyclopedie Art. "Dimension “… one may however look upon duration as a fourth dimension, and that the product of time and solidity is in a way a product of four dimensions 1788 Joseph-Louis Lagrange Mécanique analytique mechanics operating in a four-dimensional space — three dimensions of space, and one of time. 1827 A. F. Möbius Der barycentrische Calcul a fourth dimension would allow a three-dimensional form to be rotated onto its mirror-image 1854 Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann On the hypotheses which underlie geometry formalized higher-dimensional spaces 1880 Charles Howard Hinton What is the Fourth Dimension?“ Explained what a "four-dimensional cube" is. 31 Origin of (geometric) four-dimensionalism "Space and Time" address at 80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians on 21 September 1908: “The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.” Hermann Minkowski 32 A brief history of the developments in four dimensionalism: selected major publications - I {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} Year Author Publications 1920 A. N. Whitehead The Concept of Nature. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1923 C. D. Broad Scientific Thought. Harcourt, New York. 1927 B. Russell The Analysis of Matter. Allen & Unwin, London. 1928 R Carnap Der logische Aufbau der Welt. Weltkreis -Verlag, Berlin. 1928 H. Reichenbach Philosophie der Raum -Zeit- Lehre , Walter de Gruyter, Berlin and Leipzig. 1937 J. Woodger The axiomatic method in biology. Cambridge The first half of the 20 th century 33 A brief history of the developments in four dimensionalism: selected major publications - II {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} Year Author Publications 1950 W.V.O. Quine Methods of Logic. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York. 1951 N. Goodman Goodman, N., The Structure of Appearance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA). 1955 Taylor Spatial and temporal analogues and the concept of identity. The Journal of Philosophy, 52: 599–612. 1955 J. J. C. Smart Spatialising time. Mind, 64: 239–241. 1967 H. Putnam Time and physical geometry, Journal of Philosophy 64 (8):240-247. 1971 D. K. Lewis Counterparts of persons and their bodies. The Journal of Philosophy, 68: 203–211. 1972 J. J. C. Smart Space-time and individuals. In Rudner, R. S. and Scheffler, I., eds., Logic and Art 1976 H. W. Noonan The four-dimensional world. Analysis, 37: 32–39. 1980 H. W. Noonan Objects and Identity. An Examination of the Relative Identity Thesis and Its Consequences. Nijhoff 1986 D. K. Lewis On the Plurality of Worlds. Blackwell, Oxford. 1980 D. M. Armstrong Identity through time. In van Inwagen, P., ed., Time and Cause. 1982 D. Robinson Re-identifying matter. The Philosophical Review, 91: 317–341. 1984 M. Heller Temporal parts of four dimensional objects. Philosophical Studies, 46: 323–334. 1990 M. Heller The Ontology of Physical Objects: Four-dimensional Hunks of Matter. Cambridge University Press, 1990 P. van Inwagen Four-Dimensional Objects, Noûs, 24: 245–55. 1993 M. Heller Varieties of Four Dimensionalism, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 71: 47–59. 1991 R. Le Poidevin Change, Cause and Contradiction. A Defence of the Tenseless Theory of Time. Macmillan, London. 1993 M. Jubien Ontology, Modality, and the Fallacy of Reference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. The second half of the 20 th Century The 21 st Century texts on four dimensionalism are too numerous to list here. 34 Ontological category: sets Sets Takes set as extensional standard set theory In ZF, the axiom of extensionality no two sets can have exactly the same elements (if two sets have the same elements, they are the same set) No constraints on what can be used to build a set objects belonging to any ontological category can be elements of sets given any collection of objects, you can build a set Simple sets such as ‘persons’ have as elements all the (individual) persons in all possible worlds 36 Ontological category: tuples Tuples Takes tuples as extensional standard mathematical tuples a mathematical tuple is an ordered sequence of objects unlike sets, tuples are ordered, meaning (a, b) is distinct from (b, a), and they allow duplicate objects – so (a, a) is tuple. the "place" of an object refers to its position in that sequence. no two tuples can have exactly the same objects in the same places (i.e. in the same order) (if two tuples have the same objects in the same places, they are the same tuple) No constraints on what can be used to build a tuple objects belonging to any ontological category can be placed in a tuple given a collection of objects can be placed in order in a tuple 38 Ontology – as everything that exists Bare Quinean view “Bare Quinean” ontology - everything Returning to van Inwagen’s paper “There is, secondly, what I will call the “ bare Quinean ” conception of ontology. Quine has famously called the question ‘What is there?’ “the ontological question,” and one might incautiously infer from this label that he conceives of ontology as the attempt to answer the ontological question. … Quine himself has observed that one correct answer to the ontological question is ‘Everything’ — and we certainly do not need to turn to any science or discipline to satisfy ourselves that that answer is correct.” Van Inwagen, P. (2021). What is an Ontological Category? In Disputatio (Vol. 10, pp. 241–261). 40 Ontology as ‘everything that exists’ “A curious thing about the ontological problem is its simplicity. It can be put in three Anglo-Saxon monosyllables: ‘What is there?’ It can be answered, moreover, in a word— ‘Everything’ —and everyone will accept this answer as true . However, this is merely to say that there is what there is. There remains room for disagreement over cases; and so the issue has stayed alive down the centuries.” Quine, W. V. (1948). "On What There Is". Review of Metaphysics. 2: 21–38. “the set of things whose existence is acknowledged by a particular theory or system of thought.” Lowe, E. J. (1995). Ontology. In T. Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford University Press. 41 BORO constructional ‘ bare Quinean ’ foundation BORO’s adoption of the constructional approach enables it to answer the ‘ bare Quinean ’ question To specify everything that exists It also neatly ‘explains’ the three ontological categories And the foundational grounding relations 42 History 43 {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} Carnap 1928 Der Logische Aufbau der Welt Goodman and Quine 1947 Steps Toward a Constructive Nominalism Goodman 1956 A World of Individuals Goodman 1958 On Relations that Generate Gödel 1964 What is Cantor's Continuum Problem Boolos 1971 The iterative conception of set {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} Fine 1991 The Study of Ontology Fine 2002 The Limits of Abstraction Fine 2005 Our Knowledge of Mathematical Objects Fine 2010 Towards a Theory of Part Contructionalism is not new. It has a longish history in philosophy in the twentieth century. More recently new ideas from Kit Fine have given a fresh impetus to constructional ontology BORO constructional history 44 {9DCAF9ED-07DC-4A11-8D7F-57B35C25682E} Stage Year Publication Establish 2014-16 2016 BORO as a Foundation to Enterprise Ontology Deploy 2017-21 2017 Developing an Ontological Sandbox 2019 Coordinate Systems: Level Ascending Ontological Options 2020 The Fantastic Combinations and Permutations of Co-ordinate Systems’ Characterising Options 2021 A Framework for Composition Roll out 2020-24 2020 The Approach to Develop the Foundation Data Model for the Information Management Framework 2022 Core Constructional Ontology 2024 The ToLO IES5 Report Constructionalism: shifting the way an ontology is ‘defined’ 45 Kit Fine: The Study of Ontology : “… , it is possible to define when three collections E, B, and C constitute an acceptable ontology (with E comprising the elements, B the basic elements, and C the constructors). “ We therefore see that a constructional ontology has a tripartite structure; there are domains for the elements, for the givens, and for the constructors. We have previously used the term 'ontology' for the domain of its elements . But let us henceforth reserve the term for the full tripartite structure and use the alternative term 'ontological domain' for the domain of elements. The objects which are accepted into an ontology on the ground that they are constructed from other objects may be called constructs. The acceptance of a construct into an ontology therefore requires the acceptance of two other items. The first is its constructees, i.e. the objects from which it is constructed. The second is the constructor, i.e. the means by which the construct is constructed from the constructees. The constructor must be regarded as a legitimate means of constructing one object from others. An ontology may be constructional. Some of the objects of the ontology are accepted (i.e. included within the ontology) on the grounds that they are constructed from other objects within the ontology; it is their status as constructs which earns their admission into the ontology. Where E the elements are generated from B, the basic elements using C, the constructors. So, B and C are fundamental, E is derived. An example of foundational parsimony - see: J. Schaffer, ‘What not to multiply without necessity’, Core Constructional Ontology (CCO) 46 CCO – components See: Core Constructional Ontology: The Foundation for the Top-Level Ontology of the Information Management Framework Top Level Categories: Categories for the Top-Level Ontology of the Information Management Framework unifying the three constructors introducing the three constructors general constructional framework background logical framework pluralities constructor sets sum constructor individuals tuple constructor tuples e.g. set of individuals set constructor 47 Pluralology – the logical framework See: The Many and the One: A Philosophical Study of Plural Logic, Salvatore Florio & Øystein Linnebo. (2021) pluralology is based upon pluralities pluralities are distinct from objects pluralities are collections of objects objects are their members pluralities can have sub-pluralities where every member of the sub-plurality is also a member of the super-plurality pluralities are extensional if two pluralities collect the same objects, then they are the same plurality looking ahead – pluralities are the inputs to constructors 48 Constructionology – the general framework a general framework for constructors constructors take pluralities of objects (the components) as inputs and construct a new object (the composite) this gives rise to composing relations. these composing relations are ontologically ‘dependence’ or ‘grounding’ relations. 49 Setology (module) setology is built using the set constructor this constructs sets from pluralities of objects it also gives rise to the element-of-set relation members of the plurality are elements of the constructed set identity (extensional) : two sets are the same if they have the same elements. the plurality of sets is the plurality of all objects constructed by the set constructor. 50 Mereology (module) mereology is built using the sum constructor this constructs individuals from pluralities of individuals it also gives rise to the part-of-whole relation members of the plurality are part of the constructed individual identity (extensional) : two individuals are the same if they have the same parts. the plurality of individuals is the plurality of all objects constructed by the sum constructor. mereology starts from the givens: these are the mereological simples (atoms) mereology can also be built using the sum deconstructor this deconstructs individuals into pluralities of individuals it also gives rise to the part-of-whole relation 51 Tupleology (module) tupleology is built using the tuple constructor this constructs tuples from pluralities of objects it also gives rise to the tuple-place relation members of the plurality occupy tuple-places in the constructed tuple identity (extensional) : two tuples are the same if they have the same tuple-placed objects in the same tuple-places. the plurality of tuples is the plurality of all objects constructed by the tuple constructor. 52 Givens Constructors General principle: Define any constructional ontology with 2 types of things: givens and constructors the ‘pluriverse’ of all the possible worlds BORO as a constructional ontology sum decomposer 53 set composer tuple composer BORO Foundational Ontology: one given; three constructors Whole ontology constructed from a single object sum decomposer 54 tuple composer set composer pluriverse complete ontology Key aspects of the CCO approach {F5AB1C69-6EDB-4FF4-983F-18BD219EF322} Foundational Unifying Constructional Object completeness The construction process supplies all the objects Common emergence of categories All the categories (sets, individuals, tuples) arise through construction Dependency (Grounding) Construction implies dependence Categorical completeness It also supplies the categories and their associated hierarchical relations Common basis for identity criteria Identity criteria arise through construction, with differences arising from the way they are constructed Parsimony (Reduction) Built from a small set of fundamental objects Common identity criteria It also determines the identity criteria (extensional based on the type of constructor and its input) Uniform commonalities and differences Commonalities and differences between categories captured by features of the underlying constructors Consistency Construction can be a basis for consistency 55 See: Core Constructional Ontology: The Foundation for the Top-Level Ontology of the Information Management Framework Ontological architecture – as bricks in a wall Key points Propose the BORO TLO deals with formal structures such as topological/metric structures 57 The data sections’ data components Note: Two types of data component: module mortar (to be explained later ) Four-dimensional space-time emerges in the final component 58 TLO components four-dimensional space-time emerges atoms connection self-connected before-after worlds worldlines worldframes 4D space-time world 4D regions congruent curves curves 59 Mereotopology mereotopology introduces connection : two individuals can be connected (or distinct) From this it defines self-connection an individual whose every part is connected to every other part. 60 Worldology wordology introduces (possible) worlds defined in mereotopological terms as maximally self-connected regions worlds are self-connected individuals that are not part of any other self-connected individuals so different worlds are not connected in any way when we introduce time, we can say that they are not connected spatially or temporally. This has been called a Lewisian or concretist view. “There are countless other worlds, other very inclusive things. Our world consists of us and all our surroundings, however, remote in time and space; just as it is one big thing having lesser things as parts, so likewise do other worlds have lesser other-worldly things as parts.” David Lewis, 1986. On The Plurality of Worlds, p. 2 61 Curveology curveology introduces (simple, open) curves defined using mereotopology and atomology as minimal, self-connected objects containing two atom endpoints are composed of atoms – zero-dimensional objects 62 Regionology (dimensionality) regionology introduces higher-level dimensional objects, including 4D Regions it collects together homogeneously two-, three- and four-dimensional regular objects where regular objects are self-connected using mereological operations, such as union and intersection, less regular objects can be generated 63 Congruentology congruentology introduces a notion of congruent curves – a relation over curves (curveology) it collects together congruent curves that is those of the same ‘length’ this is the basis for metrics 64 Prior form: chronology and worldlineology {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} Year Author Title 1919 A. N. Whitehead An enquiry concerning the principles of natural knowledge 1928 R. Carnap The Logical Structure of the World 1936 B. Russell On order in time 1939 J. H. Woodger The Technique of Theory Construction 1963 A. Grünbaum Philosophical Problems of Space and Time 1981 P. Needham Temporal Intervals and Temporal Order 1982 C. Lejewski Ontology: What's Next? Opportunity to build upon previous work, including: Key architecture: time as a before-after relation between individuals (Grunbaum has more places) worldlines as characterising space-time Introduced the name ‘chronology’ 65 Chronology chronology introduces a (completely) before-after relation between individuals from this the other temporal relations can be defined 66 Worldlineology Illustration: Minkowski, Hermann (1909), "Raum und Zeit", Physikalische Zeitschrift, 10: 75–88 worldlineology introduces worldlines defined in terms of a time-like (chronology) curve (curveology) every two points (atoms) in the time-like curve have to be in a before-after relation 67 Worldframeology worldframeology introduces worldframes defined as sets of ‘parallel’ worldlines (worldlineology) that cover space-time, where ‘parallel’ is defined using congruence (congruentology) there are typically an infinite number of worldframes Year Title Link 2019 Coordinate Systems: Level Ascending Ontological Options https://borosolutions.net/coordinate-systems-multi-2019 2013 Air Control Means: An ‘Improving Precision’ Case Study https://borosolutions.net/air-control-means-ontobras-2013 2013 Geospatial and Temporal Reference: A Case Study Illustrating (Radical) Refactoring https://borosolutions.net/geospatial-temporal-reference-ontobras-2013 2011 An information model for geospatial and temporal references https://borosolutions.net/qq2011-model-geospatial-temporal-references See also: 68 Summary - bare Quinean view Quine: ‘What is there?’ … It can be answered, moreover, in a word—‘Everything’—and everyone will accept this answer as true. The constructional machinery can (using a single, unified process): give an account of ‘everything’ ( o bject completeness ), and explain what ontological category everything has ( categorical completeness ) Provide a single explanation of their identity criteria ( c ommon identity criteria ) (extensional based on the type of constructor and its input) 69 Characterising the bCLEARer process A three-level framework 71 The process architecture has a three-level framework. bCLEARer’s five stages {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} stages Collect Collect the datasets Establish the broad scope of the process Load Select the data in scope Translate the data into the cells Evolve Reveal the underlying semantics Mine the ontology Assimilate Merge the run into the full model Establish a single integrated model Reuse Export into applications and (re-)use 72 collect load evolve assimilate reuse Process evolution - extension 73 Over time, the process evolves as new stages emerge. Process evolution - multiplicity 74 There can be multiple process evolving over time. Multiple inputs, multiple runs, integrated a repeated sequence of automated processes: a scalable way to systematically improve semantic maturity data 2 increasing semantic maturity reuse reuse Foundational ontology collect data 1 data 3 collect collect integrated into a single foundational ontology 75 The user perspective 76 Schematic view of one bCLEARer engine 77 Increase maturity in pragmatic steps 78 increasing semantic maturity evolve Entity repository project 1 project 2 project 3 entification O-O repository object-orientation Ontological repository ontologisation (or ontologification) style.visibility style.visibility style.visibility style.visibility Design space Levels of generality One can broadly divide information into levels of generality. From a syntactic ‘data’ perspective, these are the natural levels: metadata, schema and data. For our purposes here, these are a good enough rough proxy for the semantic levels to make the substitution fair for our broad classification top, the most general - categories, middle – universals/types and bottom level - the most specific – typically particulars. We need the syntactic perspective we often start with ‘raw’ structured information where this is simple to identify. 80 Design Space – in two dimensions 81 metadata schema data brain speech writing printing computer levels of generality early-stage process - levels of digitalization two-dimensional design space - exploitation Target 1) computer level digitalisation 2) cover all levels of generality Often omit data – especially large datasets Often work with unstructured data – even brain data Information pathway An information pathway refers to the flow and transformation of data or knowledge from its source to its intended destination. It can occur within a system (such as a human brain, an organization, or software application) or between multiple systems. It also occurs in an ontologization process We look at the way the ontologization process engages in the information pathway with the two-dimensional levels over time. 82 Exploiting the new space involves a ‘shift left’ 83 Smith, L. (2001). "Shift-left testing". Dr. Dobb’s Journal, 26(9), 56–ff. Bahrs , P. (2014). Shifting Left - Approach and Practices. https://www.slideshare.net/Urbancode/shift-left Firesmith , D. (2015). "Four types of shift left testing". Podcast, Software Engineering Institute Website, September. Exploiting the space involves shifting the introduction of data (generality) and computing (digitalization) to as early in the project as feasible. Architectural issues Use a micro architecture not a monolithic architecture a pipeline built of micro transformations Design for inspectability ensure data identity traceability 84 Digitalisation Process Factorisation *Computerization versus *ontologisation *Computerization transformations that make the intended interpretation explicit avoids leading the interpretation From an ethnographical perspective, this is a kind of ‘surfacing’. the details are technical and “excursions into this aspect of information infrastructure can be stiflingly boring”. This means that large parts of the infrastructure are often invisible, S. L. Star, ‘The Ethnography of Infrastructure’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 43, no. 3, Art. no. 3, Nov. 1999 *Ontologization shifts towards the preferred ontology using the foundational ontology embraces leading the interpretation moves in small clear steps Chris Partridge, C., Mitchell, A., de Cesare, S., Beverley, J. (2025). "Broadening Ontologization Design: Embracing Data Pipeline Strategies". https://www.academia.edu/129382330 86 Factorization of digitalisation unstructured structured implicit (syntax) explicit (syntax) implicit (semantics) explicit (semantics) *ontologization surface-*computerization *computerization deep-*computerization digitalisation 87 *computerization Ordering the factored components bCLEARer Pipeline surface-*computerization deep-*computerization *ontologization 88 Post-Ontology De se agentology Partridge, C., de Cesare, S., Mitchell, A., León, A., Gailly , F., & Khan, M. (2018). Ontology then Agentology: A Finer Grained Framework for Enterprise Modelling: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development , 454–463. https://doi.org/10.5220/0006606304540463 Introducing a de se perspective – the indexical ‘I’ 90 De se doxastology Developing a de se doxastology for uncertain information two dimensional Lewisian semantics See: Chris Partridge, C., Mitchell, A., Cola A., (2025). "Digitalizing Uncertain Information". https://www.academia.edu/125111898/ 91 Summary Summary BORO foundational ontology is promulgated as a a toolkit for ontological analysis Characterised the foundational ontology in three ways ontological categories bare Quinean structure – using a constructional approach broad ontological architecture (and patterns) Proposed a micro transformation architectural pipeline process to inject the foundational ontology into the interoperability processes 93 Questions 94