Jump to content

Object-Centered High-level Reference


RachelJudson
 Share

General

  • Ontologically Committed

    Ontological
  • Commitment Level

    High
  • Subject

    Foundational
  • Categorical

    Yes

Vertical

  • Parent-arity Type Instance

    Not applicable
  • Transitivity

    Not applicable
  • Boundedness Type Instance - Downward

    Not applicable
  • Boundedness Type Instance - Fixed Finite Levels

    Not applicable
  • Boundedness Type Instance - Number of Fixed Levels

    Not applicable
  • Stratification Type Instance

    Not applicable
  • Formal Generation - Whole Part - Fusion

    Yes
  • Formal Generation - Whole Part - Complement

    Yes
  • Formal Generation - Type Instance - Fusion

    Not applicable
  • Formal Generation - Super Sub Type - Fusion

    Not applicable
  • Formal Generation - Super Sub Type - Complement

    Not applicable
  • Relation Class-ness Type Instance

    Not applicable
  • Relation Class-ness Super Sub Type

    Not applicable

Horizontal

  • Spacetime

    Unifying
  • Locations

    Unifying
  • Properties

    Separating
  • Endurants

    Unifying
  • Immaterial

    Not yet assessed

Universal

  • Merelogy

    CM
  • Interpenetration

    Not allowed
  • Materialism

    Not yet assessed
  • Possibilia

    Not yet assessed
  • Time

    Not yet assessed
  • Indexicals: Here And Now

    Not yet assessed
  • Higher-arity

    Supported

Object-Centered High-level Reference - OCHRE 

  1. Overview 

Object-Centered High-level REference ontology is a descriptive, foundational ontology of objects. 

  1. Top-level 

The crucial ontological choice in an atomistic mereology pertains to the nature of the building blocks of reality. There is a widespread consensus amongst ontologists that the denizens of reality fall into three main categories: objects (like quarks, tables, stones, insurance companies and solar systems), attributes or particular properties and relations (like the various colour hues on a soap bubble, the mass and velocity of a bullet, your intelligence and your relatedness to your parents) as well as events and processes (like runnings, hugs, bank transfers, perceptions, and thinkings). In the final section of this paper, I will show that events and processes can be regarded as successions of attribute bundles. (Schneider, 2003) 

  1. Key characteristics 

OCHRE is a foundational ontology that identifies itself as being descriptive and combining adequacy to common sense and formal economy. Its most notable features include particularism, object-centrism and extensionalism. It is a theory of objects that is particularly reliant on mereology and existential dependence. Events and processes are constructed from successions of objects. 

  1. Relevant extracts 

The Object-Centered High-level Reference ontology (OCHRE) has been developed within the above framework and aims at combining descriptive adequacy for commonsense with formal economy in the basic categories and their axiomatisation. 

Particularism. OCHRE is an ontology of particulars, even more so than DOLCE, because it does not include universals, i.e. repeatable properties, in its domain. With “particulars”, we mean here the concrete individuals, whether physical, mental or social, which we regard to be composed out of simple (atomic) individual features, i.e. non-repeatable properties and relations. Nevertheless, the domain of OCHRE is left sufficiently unspecified to allow for user-specified extensions. Other theories can be plugged into OCHRE; a desirable addition could be elementary set theory as well as an apparatus for representing meta-knowledge.  

Object-Centered Approach. OCHRE is an object-centered ontology in the sense that certain bundles of tropes, namely those exhibiting spatial and temporal features as well as their enduring cores, are granted a privileged ontological status over other particulars. Especially the “event” category is considered to be a derived from the concept of “object”, inasmuch occurrences as state-transitions are conceived of as successions of objects.  

Extensionalism. OCHRE is decidedly extensionalist in two respects. On the one hand, we adopt extensionalism regarding parthood, which means that particulars with the same parts are considered to be the same. On the other hand, we adopt extensionalism with respect to spatial extent, insofar as no two spatial objects can be coincident. Thus, OCHRE rejects the multiplicative approach; instead of multiplying spatial objects having the same parts or the same spatial extension, we prefer to speak of spatial objects having various qualitative aspects or “guises”. A statue and the material it is made of are not two coincident objects, but two facets of the same impenetrable object. 

WWD18, p. 43 

In OCHRE, we have adopted the so-called Closure Mereology (CM) that amounts to a Boolean algebra without a null element (Simons [76, chap. 1]; Casati and Varzi [12, chap. 3]). More precisely, OCHRE is based on the atomistic version of CM. 

WWD18, p. 46 

The crucial ontological choice in an atomistic mereology pertains to the nature of the building blocks of reality. There is a widespread consensus amongst ontologists that the denizens of reality fall into three main categories: objects (like quarks, tables, stones, insurance companies and solar systems), attributes or particular properties and relations (like the various colour hues on a soap bubble, the mass and velocity of a bullet, your intelligence and your relatedness to your parents) as well as events and processes (like runnings, hugs, bank transfers, perceptions, and thinkings). In the final section of this paper, I will show that events and processes can be regarded as successions of attribute bundles. 

[…] 

Obviously, OCHRE has to acknowledge repeatable properties or relations, too, if only the formal universals that are the subject matter of any foundational ontology, such as object, trope, parthood, dependence, or similarity. References to formal properties and relations are made through (lambda-abstractions of) the respective predicates. Semantically, of course, predicates can be interpreted as sets; ontologically, however, there is no need to regard a universal as something outside or above the entities that exemplify it. OCHRE embraces the stance of Aristotelian realism, according to which repeatable properties and relations are given or present in their very instances (Aristotle, Met.: 1023b; Armstrong 1997, p. 22). For example, in order to know whether an individual is part of another, it is sufficient to inspect both of them. (Schneider, 2003) p.4 

Schneider, Designing Foundational Ontologies, 2003. 

WonderWeb Deliverable 18, 2003. 

 Share


User Feedback

Recommended Comments

There are no comments to display.


Top
×
×
  • Create New...