Key research themes
1. How can ontologies be engineered with systematic methodologies to ensure effective knowledge representation and reuse?
This research theme focuses on developing principles, methods, and tools for constructing ontologies that are reusable, shareable, and computationally interpretable. It addresses the processes of ontology development, lifecycle management, methodological rigor, and engineering best practices, which are vital for applications across numerous domains such as semantic web, bioinformatics, and information systems.
2. What ontological principles and frameworks support the representation and analysis of organizational and causal knowledge?
This research area investigates how ontologies can capture complex concepts underlying organizational existence, causal relationships, and social constructs. It integrates philosophical analysis with formal ontology approaches to provide rigorous models that enhance understanding and interoperability in domains dealing with organizational identity, causality, and social systems.
3. How can ontologies enhance interoperability and modularization in large-scale information systems and biomedical domains?
This theme explores the role of ontologies in supporting semantic interoperability by enabling modularization of complex ontology networks, facilitating reuse, information integration, and precise knowledge representation in domains like public security and healthcare. It studies practical applications of ontologies, including the structuring of competencies in healthcare and the explanation and clarification of biomedical conceptual models.



![Fig.1. A fragment of the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) Among the categories of endurants, UFO makes a distinction between objects an ropes (see Fig.1). Objects are existentially independent entities. Examples incluc rdinary mesoscopic objects such as an individual person, a car, Alan Turing and TI ‘olling Stones. Tropes are endurants that are existentially dependent on other entiti termed their bearers) in the way in which, for example, an electrical charge can exi mly in some conductor. We define a particular relation of existential dependence bi ween tropes and their bearers called inherence [3]. Inherence is a type of specif: onstant and functional existential dependence relation. Intuitively, we have that, fc nstance, the headache of John can only exist if John exists and cannot be dependet m anyone but John. The notion of tropes employed here includes both what ai srmed qualities (e.g., the color of an eye, the atomic number of an atom) as well ispositions [11] (e.g. the fragility of a glass, the electrical conductivity of a material](https://web.archive.org/web/20251008000609im_/https://figures.academia-assets.com/34591705/figure_001.jpg)
![As for any mereological theory, we assume the has-part relation between events to be a strict partial order (axioms M3-M5). Moreover, we assume an atomistic mereology for events, i.e., in our theory there are events which cannot be further decomposed and, hence, are atomic w.r.t. the parthood relation [13]. We define that atomic and complex events form a (disjoint, complete) partition (axioms M1 and M2).](https://web.archive.org/web/20251008000609im_/https://figures.academia-assets.com/34591705/figure_002.jpg)
![Fig. 3 summarizes the results of this subsection and depicts these two aspects on which events can be analyzed, namely, as entities with certain mereological struc- tures, and as ontologically dependent entities consisting of a number of individual participations. As expressed in figure 3, the relations of exclusively depends on, par- ticipation of and the notion of participation itself are all derived notions (derived from the relations of parthood and existential dependence). Nonetheless, making explicit the notion of participation is of great importance from an ontological as well as con- ceptual point of view. We shall return to this point in sections 5 and 6. 3.3 Temporal Relations between Events As in [7], we have that all spatial properties of events are defined in terms of the spa- tial properties of their participants. In contrast, all temporal properties of objects are defined in terms of the events they participate in. Analogous to what has been dis- cussed elsewhere for objects [3], also the temporal properties of events are represent:](https://web.archive.org/web/20251008000609im_/https://figures.academia-assets.com/34591705/figure_003.jpg)



![As discussed in [13], axioms M3-MS5 do not suffice to characterize a parthood rela- tion, since a number of other non-mereological relations are also partial order rela- tions (e.g., causality, less than, temporal ordering). An additional axiom is necessary to comprise what is known as Minimum Mereology (MM), namely, the so-called Weak Supplementation Axiom (WSP). Intuitively, WSP states that if an object is com- plex then it must have at least two disjoint (i.e., non-overlapping) parts (M6). The no- tion of mereological overlap is defined in (M7). We here also subscribe to the view defended in [13] that an Event Mereology should commit to what is termed an Exten- sional Mereology. By including what is termed the Strong Supplementation Axiom in MM (M8), we obtain the mereological equivalent of the extensionality principle of set theory, i.e., two events are the same if they are composed of the same parts (M9). 3.2 On the Participation of Objects in Events Events are ontologically dependent entities in the sense that they existentially depend on objects in order to exist. As previously discussed, events can be either (mereologically) atomic or complex. An atomic event is said to be directly existential- ly dependent on an object. This relation (termed here dependsOn) is the perdurant counterpart of the inherence relation between tropes and their bearers, i.e., dependsOn is a specific constant dependence relation [7]. Moreover, as inherence, dependsOn (defined for atomic events) is a functional relation (P1). A complex event is also an](https://web.archive.org/web/20251008000609im_/https://figures.academia-assets.com/34591705/table_001.jpg)
![In the sequel, following [14], we present an axiomatization of these temporal Allen relations (T7-T13). In addition, we also define the linear time point space as a total order (T1-T4) and define two auxiliary functions for the begin-point and end-point of an event (T5-T6). Finally, we state that the temporal extent of an event (improperly) includes the temporal extent of all its (proper) parts (T14).](https://web.archive.org/web/20251008000609im_/https://figures.academia-assets.com/34591705/table_002.jpg)
