Skip to main content

Table 1 A selection of conflicts that may emerge during ontology authoring, as a preliminary library of conflicts

From: Toward a systematic conflict resolution framework for ontologies

No. Conflict Description Examples
   Conflicting theories at the top-level  
1 foundational ontologies adhere to conflicting theories BFO, DOLCE, GFO, SUMO, UFO, YAMATO (see Table 2 for details)
2 mereological conflicting mereological theories with Atom or not, weak vs. strong supplementation
3 topological conflicting topological theories region connection calculus on non-simply connected regions
4 building blocks different ontological commitments embedded in the language whether roles are part of the fundamental furniture of the universe, 3D + time vs. 4D ‘worms’
   Conflicting theories at the subject domain level  
5 domain theory theories with competing views of the whole domain Newtonian physics vs. relativistic mechanics
6 status of an element theories with competing views about a specific entity whether virus is a living thing or not
   Axiom-level conflicts  
7 ontological conflicting theories acting out on the axiom-level pinpointing the violating axiom in items 1–3, 5, or 6, e.g., whether parthood is antisymmetric or not
8 within-language family violation of a language profile beyond decidability some of the non-admissible axiom combinations as listed in the first item of Example 4
   violation of a language profile, yet remaining decidable functional and transitive properties in OWL 2 QL
   Other conflicts  
9 modeling style applied vs. foundational whether there are data property axioms, alike height between Person and xsd:decimal
   class vs. object property Infection vs. infected-by
   subsuming roles vs. roles inhering in objects doctor is-a person vs. doctor inheres-in person
10 language cultural-linguistic and labeling differences, such as preferred/alt labels, orthography, language variants population immunity vs herd immunity, eraser vs rubber, color vs colour, and non-1:1 mappings where a concept is named in one language but not in another (e.g., ‘river’ vs fleuve and rivière)