Any one of the OWL species, currently one of: lite, dl, and full Any relation between two (networked) ontologies. ontology design data ontology The C-ODO library currently contains 8 native ontologies, and imports or uses several others, either for design purposes (DOLCE, cDnS, etc.), or for extending their scope (owlodm, OMV, oQual, SKOS, NeOn networked ontology model). odData.owl describes the data that are involved in collaborative ontology design, and it is linked to the OWL1.0 metamodel, OMV, SKOS, and the W3C WordNet metamodel. C-ODO is an ontology for ontology design, to be used as a set of social requirements for NeOn methodologies and tools. The key notion is 'ontology project', which is assumed to be made up of knowledge-level ('epistemic') workflows, which on their turn contain 'argumentation structures' and 'design rationales' that motivate 'design solutions' taken from a 'choice space' generated by 'design patterns' over 'ontology elements'. Appropriate roles (e.g. 'knowledge product', 'knowledge creator') and tasks (e.g. functionalities like 'selection', 'importing', etc.) are used by project, workflow, and rationale schemas. Situation classes ('ontology project execution', 'epistemic workflow enactment', 'argumentation situation', 'design making', 'design solution') are introduced in order to reason on the actual occurrences of those schemas. Moreover, ontology objects and other information objects used during the ontology lifecycle, together with the design operations and the designer agents, are framed by those situations if they comply to the roles and tasks used by the schemas. Types of projects, workflows, argumentation, rationales, patterns, etc. are also introduced in C-ODO. The schema-situation approach is an architectural design pattern that is wholly axiomatized in the cDnS ontology (http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/cDnS.owl). It allows to talk of contexts (or methods, plans, etc.) in the same domain as the actual situations (executions, observations, etc.) that exemplify those contexts. More generally, the ontology design ontology uses the following patterns: - the DnS content pattern (http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/ExtendedDnS.owl) has been used throughout, and the following sub-patterns have been used: a) descriptions and concepts depend on existential axioms only when they involve 'descriptive' entities b) descriptions are constrained wrt a given situation class SC c) concepts are constrained wrt a given entity class EC d) SC are defined by requiring that some entity from EC is in their setting. - the collections pattern (http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/ExtendedDnS.owl), and the following sub-patterns have been used: a) collections have any entities as members b) collections are covered or characterized by concepts c) collections are unified by descriptions that use or define those concepts. -the plans pattern (http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/Plans.owl): a) plans use tasks, roles, and parameters b) plans have a main goal as a proper part c) plans are 'executed' within plan executions by agents playing roles in order to perform the tasks used by the plan d) plan executions start from certain situations ('preconditions') and result in certain situations ('postconditions'). Postconditions can be compliant or not to the expected goal. 41 Network of ontologies A network of ontologies (or ontology network) is a collection of ontologies with a specified unifying criterion (description), provided by (reifying a) relation such as 'being a version of', 'imports', 'identical to', 'equivalent to', 'is clone of', 'mapped to', 'contains module', etc. A formal construct with a semantics similar to classes, but without an explicit naming. E.g. OWL 'restrictions'. Anonymous classes are both classes and axioms. A collection of categories organized according to a specified syntax, typically used to create a controlled terminology in a domain. A useful rdfs encoding of a typical thesaurus syntax is the SKOS schema, which will be aligned to C-ODO. Any data structure, including databases, schemas, lexica, knowledge organizations systems, etc. An ontology network whose unifying relation has no semantic consequence on the internal structure of networked ontologies. Relations such as identity, equivalence, versioning, etc. create simple ontology networks. A practical consequence is that E-Connection semantics does not make it emerge a distributed ontology from the networked ontologies. ontology Here: a (usually complex) typed formal expression, which can be realized either analogically or as a non-executable digital object. An ontology is a typed logical theory, i.e. its characteristic elements are named after a non-logical vocabulary. Ontology is taken here independently from a particular logical language, but excludes languages that do not have a formal semantics (e.g. folksonomies, lexicons, thesauri). A collection of tags or metadata that have no formal semantics, and are typically used sparsely to annotate texts, images, bookmarks, etc. Issue to be clarified: should a distributed ontology be identical to the ontology network it emerges from, or not? While in cases like importing and merging that seems reasonable, in other cases like mapping, aligning, reusing, etc., that is possibly inadequate. Another solution, applied here, is to keep networks and ontologies separate, and advocating an extensional equivalence when all the elements of ontologies in a qualified ontology network are also element of a distributed ontology. An ontology network whose unifying relation has semantic consequences on the internal structure of networked ontologies. Relations such as merging, aligning, importing, etc. create qualified ontology networks. A practical consequence is that E-Connection semantics can make it emerge a distributed ontology from the networked ontologies. A generalized formal construct asserting relations between classes, e.g. rdfs:subClassOf assertions, owl:restrictions, domain and range restrictions, equivalences, etc. An ontology that is member of an ontology network. In practice, an ontology is networked when it has some relation to other ontologies. An ontology can be networked because it started a relation after its creation, or because it emerges from a (qualified) relation between other ontologies, as in the case of qualified ontology networks. In the second case, it can be called a 'inherently networked' ontology. For example, two ontologies O1 and O2 that have an equivalence relation, are networked ontologies. More interestingly, an ontology O3 that has been designed by reusing components from two ontologies O4 and O5 is also a (distributed) networked ontology. Modules and content design patterns are also networked ontologies. A collection of lexical items (terms, entries, ...) that are witnessed to have a linguistic relevance. An alignment is expected here to lexical metamodels for multilingual ontologies and formal lexicons (e.g. the W3C WordNet OWL metamodel, the LMF proposed ISO standard, etc.). An (identified) element from an ontology. Classes defined under ontology elements should be mapped to either OMV classes, to CL, ODM, or Ontolingua's FrameOntology. A class whose elements are classes. E.g., OntoClean meta-properties are meta-classes. The ObjectProperty hasMetaClass holds between classes or relations, and meta-classes. An axiom that is asserted independently from a specific ontology element, i.e. not within the axioms that are proper to that element. BTW, depending on the particular 'style' of a logical language and its reasoning system, rules (and axioms in general) can be considered within or or outside other elements' characterization. An ontology repository.