The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this paper is to defend the systematic introduction of formal ontological principles in the current practice of knowledge engineering, to explore the various relationships between ontology and knowledge representation, and to present the recent trends in this promising research area. According to the "modelling view" of knowledge acquisition proposed by Clancey, the modelling activity must establish a correspondence between a knowledge base and two separate subsystems: the agent's behaviour (i.e. the problem-solving expertise ) and its own environment (the problem domain ). Current knowledge modelling methodologies tend to focus on the former sub-system only, viewing domain knowledge as strongly dependent on the particular task at hand: in fact, AI researchers seem to have been much more interested in the nature of reasoning rather than in the nature of the real world. Recently, however, the potential value of task-independent knowledge bases (or "ontologies") suitable to large scale integration has been underlined in many ways. In this paper, we compare the dichotomy between reasoning and representation to the philosophical distinction between epistemology and ontology. We introduce the notion of the ontological level, intermediate between the epistemological and the conceptual levels discussed by Brachman, as a way to characterize a knowledge representation formalism taking into account the intended meaning of its primitives. We then discuss some formal ontologic distinctions which may play an important role for such purpose.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Guarino, N., Oberle, D., & Staab, S. (2009) · Handbook on Ontologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3_0 · Cited by 1,244
Self-citationUsing explicit ontologies in KBS development
van Heijst, G., Schreiber, A. T., & Wielinga, B. J. (1997) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1996.0090 · Cited by 710
Formal Ontology in Information Systems: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference (FOIS 2025)
(2025) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications · doi:10.3233/faia409 · Cited by 470
Gutierrez, C., & Sequeda, J. F. (2021) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3418294 · Cited by 148
Cabitza, F., Campagner, A., Malgieri, G., Natali, C., Schneeberger, D., Stoeger, K., & Holzinger, A. (2023) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118888 · Cited by 89
Metadata
- Authors
- Guarino, N.
- Venue
- International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1995-11
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 5-6
- Pages
- 625-640
- ISSN
- 1071-5819 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1991183254
- Cited by
- 1,197
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1006/ijhc.1995.1066
- The paper
- Guarino, N. (1995). Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1995.1066
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.