GFO Part I Basic Principles
           
  ontomed Theories Concepts Applications  
 
Ontological
Investigations
Conceptual
Modelling
Onto-Builder
 
 
Axiomatic
Foundations
Domain
Ontologies
Onco-Workstation
 
 
Metalogical
Analyses
Ontology
Languages
SOP-Creator
 
           
 
 

Onto-Med >> Theories >> GFO Part I Basic Principles

 
   


16 Comparisons With Other Foundational Ontologies

Apart from GFO, a number of top-level ontologies are proposed by different groups or persons, among them DOLCE36 (39,40), SUMO37(42), CYC38 (35), Matthew West's 4D-ontology39(62), John Sowa's ontology (54), Johanna Seibt's process ontology (cf. (52)) and others. Moreover, the continuous coexistence of different top-level approaches was acknowledged at the March 2006 Upper Ontology Summit, a meeting of several representatives from some of these groups.40Hence, the comparison and alignment of different top-level ontologies remains an important task in general. Here, we compare GFO with two of the above ontologies, namely DOLCE and that of John Sowa, while further comparisons remain to be completed. The next ontologies to be included are SUMO and the ontologies of M. West and J. Seibt.

The following comparison is based on textual specifications, and is neither intended to be complete, nor to provide a formal mapping between the ontologies. Tables 2 and 3 (p. [*] and [*]) present coarse mappings between GFO and DOLCE. Tables 4 and 5 (p. [*] and [*]) offer analogous mappings between GFO and Sowa's ontology. Two mappings are specified for each ontology because only very few categories correspond to one another exactly, but several categories may describe one category in the other ontology. Parentheses in the right columns indicate a lower level of adequacy for a particular mapping.



Subsections
Robert Hoehndorf 2006-10-18
 
       
     
     
     

   
     
     
       
 

deutsch   imise uni-leipzig ifi dep-of-formal-concepts