cDnS.owl
type: Ontology
version info: Created by Aldo Gangemi Version 1.1 aligns cDnS with the axiomatization in the article JAAMAS 2008.
version info: 1.1

Entity
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  union of: Schematic entity
  union of: Non-schematic entity
comment: Entities are anything that is assumed to exist in some domain of interest, for any possible world. Main subtypes of entities are schematic, and non-schematic. The first one is the focus of this ontology. The entities that are 'described' (see property describes) are called GroundEntity(s), and can be either schematic or not, inherited from other ontologies or not.
subclass of: Thing

Schematic entity
type: Class
complement of: Non-schematic entity
subclass of: Entity
comment: The entities that are axiomatized in cDnS. They are proposed as primitives for a constructive ontology of social reality, and have counterparts as reifications of model-theoretical primitives, as well as representations of cognitive schematic principles.

Non-schematic entity
type: Class
complement of: Schematic entity
subclass of: Entity
comment: Any entity that is not schematic, i.e. purely constructed by cognitive or social systems.

Configuration
type: Class
comment: When unification is applied to the parts of an entity, so that the unifying description defines concepts that classify those parts, the collection is called configuration. The axioms for configurations cannot be represented in OWL1.0. For example, the collection of all parts of a car, when the unifying description is a functional design description, is a configuration.
subclass of: Collection

Collection
type: Class
disjoint with: Social agent
disjoint with: Information object
disjoint with: Description
comment: Collections are naturalizations in space-time of proper classes with (at least one) basic properties for membership. This seems to capture the common sense intuition underlying groups, teams, collections, collectives, associations, etc. Collection are related to other entities in c.DnS by means of the following projections: unifiedBy (holding between a descriptions and a collections); coveredBy, characterizedBy (holding between concepts and collections); hasMember (holding between entities and collections).
subclass of: Restriction
  some values from: Description
  on property: is unified by
disjoint with: Concept
subclass of: Schematic entity
disjoint with: Situation
subclass of: Restriction
  some values from: Concept
  on property: is covered by

Description
type: Class
disjoint with: Concept
disjoint with: Collection
subclass of: Restriction
  some values from: Information object
  on property: is expressed by
comment: Descriptions are entities that represent a conceptualization. They are dependent on some cdns:SocialAgent and are communicable in principle. Examples of descriptions include regulations, plans, laws, diagnoses, projects, narratives, techniques, etc. Descriptions have typical components, called cdns:Concept(s), and are related to other entities in c.DnS by means of the following projections: cdns:defines (which hold between descriptions and concepts); cdns:describes, ground:isIndividuallyConstructedAs (compositions of relations, holding between descriptions and entities); cdns:unifies (holding between descriptions and collections).
disjoint with: Information object
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: is shared by
  some values from: Social agent
disjoint with: Social agent
subclass of: Schematic entity
disjoint with: Situation

Concept
type: Class
disjoint with: Situation
comment: Concepts are defined by a Description and can be used in other descriptions. Concepts are related to other entities in c.DnS by means of the following projections: classifies (holding between concepts and entities); covers, characterizes (holding between concepts and collections).
disjoint with: Information object
subclass of: Restriction
  some values from: Description
  on property: is defined in
disjoint with: Description
disjoint with: Collection
subclass of: Schematic entity
disjoint with: Social agent

Information object
type: Class
disjoint with: Social agent
comment: Information Objects are naturalized units of information that can have a history and evolve, just like other social entities. Examples include texts, images, sounds, independently from how they are realized on a physical support. Information objects are related to other entities in c.DnS by means of the following projections: expresses (between information objects and descriptions), about (between information objects and entities), and realizedBy (between information objects and physical entities).
subclass of: Schematic entity
disjoint with: Situation
disjoint with: Description
disjoint with: Concept
disjoint with: Collection

is expressed by
type: ObjectProperty
inverse of: expresses
range: Information object
domain: Schematic entity

is shared by
type: ObjectProperty
range: Social agent
domain: Schematic entity
inverse of: shares

Social agent
type: Class
subclass of: Restriction
  some values from: Description
  on property: is introduced by
disjoint with: Concept
disjoint with: Description
disjoint with: Collection
subclass of: Schematic entity
disjoint with: Information object
disjoint with: Situation
comment: Social agents are individuals that have been created as social entities, and are assumed to 'share descriptions (=to be able to build relational contexts) of other entities, as members of some 'knowledge collective'. In other words, agents in c.DnS are members of some community that shares some knowledge, and as such, they are able to 'carve up' the world into contexts. Social agents are also required to be 'acted by' some physical entity, and such entities can be called 'physical agents' (see ontology ground.owl). Common sense agents are actually either social individuals (companies, organizations, institutions, governments), or physical individuals that can take roles for those social individuals. Notice that this notion of agent excludes purely causal agents like avalanches, stones, bullets, viruses, etc., because those do not act for socially-constructed agents, but are simply participants to events according to laws of nature, and with no ability to 'share' (=self-represent, build) knowledge. Notice also that the notion of (computational) agent in AI is operational, i.e. it depends on the operations that are allowed to a computational entity, and therefore is more alike to artifacts than to social agents. Social agents include persons and organizations, but never a bio-physical system that plays an agentive role (these are represented as non-schematic entities, see http://www.loa-cnr/ontologies/ground.owl). Social agents are related to other entities in c.DnS by means of the following projections: shares (holding between social agents and descriptions); redescribes (holding between social agents and situations); deputes (holding between social agents and concepts); exemplifies (holding between social agents).
subclass of: Restriction
  some values from: Entity
  on property: is acted by

Situation
type: Class
comment: Situations are entities that represent a relational context, under the assumption that its components carve up a view (a setting) on the domain of an ontology by virtue of a description. Examples of situations (corresponding to the examples of descriptions, see Description) are: facts, plan executions, legal cases, diagnostic cases, attempted projects, performances, technical actions, etc. Situations are related to other entities in c.DnS by means of the following projections: settingFor (holding between situations and entities); satisfies (holding between situations and descriptions); hasInScope (holding between situations).
disjoint with: Social agent
disjoint with: Information object
subclass of: Schematic entity
disjoint with: Collection
disjoint with: Concept
disjoint with: Description
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: satisfies
  some values from: Description

is introduced by
type: ObjectProperty
domain: Social agent
inverse of: introduces
range: Description

is acted by
type: ObjectProperty
domain: Social agent
inverse of: acts for
range: Entity

is defined in
type: ObjectProperty
domain: Concept
range: Description
inverse of: defines

Bundle
type: Class
subclass of: Restriction
  min cardinality: 2
  on property: has proper part
subclass of: Description
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: has proper part
  some values from: Description
comment: A bundle is a (mereological) sum of (at least two) descriptions that are either all satisfied by a situation, or all define concepts that characterize a same collection. For example, a strategy comprising several plans and decision criteria is a bundle.

has proper part
type: TransitiveProperty
comment: The usual mereological relation: transitive, asymmetric, and irreflexive.
inverse of: is proper part of
domain: Entity
range: Entity
type: ObjectProperty

Ground entity
type: Class
equivalent class: Restriction
  some values from: Description
  on property: is described in
subclass of: Entity
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: has setting
  some values from: Situation
comment: The entities that are 'described' (see describes) are called ground entities, and can be either schematic or not, inherited from other ontologies or not. A ground entity is supposed to receive a unity criterion through its describes axioms; for example, an old cradle used as a flower pot receives a functional unity criterion through the Description 'old cradles can be used as containers in a furniture'.
subclass of: Restriction
  on property: is classified by
  some values from: Concept

is described in
type: ObjectProperty
inverse of: describes
range: Description
domain: Entity

has setting
type: ObjectProperty
comment: The settingFor relation is the projection of c.DnS over situations and entities. It formalizes the intuition of an entity being contextualized or 'situated'. For example: isSettingFor(MandateForGovernmentToProdi, Napolitano, 2007)
domain: Entity
range: Situation
inverse of: is setting for

is classified by
type: ObjectProperty
domain: Entity
range: Concept
inverse of: classifies

satisfies
type: ObjectProperty
comment: The satisfies relation is the projection of c.DnS over situations and descriptions. It formalizes the intuition of an instantiation of a gestalt, or cognitive context. For example: satisfies(MandateForGovernmentToProdi, LawForGovernmentFormation)
range: Description
domain: Situation
inverse of: is satisfied by

is unified by
type: ObjectProperty
domain: Collection
range: Description
inverse of: unifies

is covered by
type: ObjectProperty
range: Concept
domain: Collection
inverse of: covers

is satisfied by
type: ObjectProperty
domain: Description
range: Situation
inverse of: satisfies

unifies
type: ObjectProperty
comment: The descriptions that define the concept(s) or concept collections that cover a collection are said to unify it. The following statement unifies(ItalianConstitution, ItalianMinisterCouncil) can be inferred as a theorem, since unifies composes the relations defines and covers, the description ItalianConstitution defines the concept Minister, and Minister covers the collection ItalianMinisterCouncil, then ItalianConstitution unifies ItalianMinisterCouncil.
range: Collection
domain: Description
inverse of: is unified by

is setting for
type: ObjectProperty
range: Entity
domain: Situation
inverse of: has setting

specializes
type: ObjectProperty
comment: The specializes relation is the projection of c.DnS between schematic entities. It conveys the intuition of a taxonomic schema across schematic entities. In the following example, the social agent Prodi2Government specializes Italian Government: specializes(Prodi2Government, ItalianGovernment) The difference between specializes and the traditional subClassOf and instanceOf relations is subtle. Firstly, specializes can be considered as a reification of subClassOf, since the latter holds for logical classes, while specializes holds for schematic entities. Secondly, since we are using first-order logic with a model-theoretic semantics, the subClassOf and instanceOf relations can also be used with schematic entities, and the choice between specializes and instanceOf often results to be a matter of good practice. For example, we may want to consider Government as a class instead of a social agent, if there is no given description that introduces government as a social agent. On the contrary, ItalianGovernment is introduced by the description ItalianConstitution, therefore it can be suitably modeled as a social agent. Therefore, Government is subClassOf A (Social Agent), Prodi2Government specializes ItalianGovernment, and both are instanceOf Government.
inverse of: is specialized by
domain: Schematic entity
range: Schematic entity

is specialized by
type: ObjectProperty
inverse of: specializes
range: Schematic entity
domain: Schematic entity

is in scope of
type: ObjectProperty
comment: The hasInScope relation reflects the intuition that situations can be epistemologically layered when a description d1 describes another description d2. When this happens, any situation s1 that satisfies d1 'has in its scope' another situation s2 that satisfies d2. A theorem is that s1 is a setting for d2. For example: hasInScope(MurderCase_1, CaesarStabbedByBrutus) means that a certain murder case (a murder situation under a certain normative description) has in scope the social fact (an aggression situation under a social description) of Caesar being stabbed by Brutus. This assertion is the consequence that a normative description has been applied to a social fact, involving its social description (e.g. a witness report), which becomes an element in the setting of the murder case. Notice that we cannot also claim that Caesar being stabbed by Brutus is on its turn in the setting of the murder case, because the case is precisely about evaluating that reported fact, not about assuming it.
inverse of: has in scope
range: Situation
domain: Situation

has in scope
type: ObjectProperty
comment: The hasInScope relation reflects the intuition that situations can be epistemologically layered when a description d1 describes another description d2. When this happens, any situation s1 that satisfies d1 'has in its scope' another situation s2 that satisfies d2. A theorem is that s1 is a setting for d2. For example: hasInScope(MurderCase_1, CaesarStabbedByBrutus) means that a certain murder case (a murder situation under a certain normative description) has in scope the social fact (an aggression situation under a social description) of Caesar being stabbed by Brutus. This assertion is the consequence that a normative description has been applied to a social fact, involving its social description (e.g. a witness report), which becomes an element in the setting of the murder case. Notice that we cannot also claim that Caesar being stabbed by Brutus is on its turn in the setting of the murder case, because the case is precisely about evaluating that reported fact, not about assuming it.
inverse of: is in scope of
domain: Situation
range: Situation

shares
type: ObjectProperty
domain: Social agent
range: Schematic entity
inverse of: is shared by
comment: The shares relation is the projection of c.DnS over social agents and schematic entities. It formalizes the intuition of the social nature of a description, i.e. the mapping of descriptions on social agents that are acted by one or more physical agents. Note that by social nature we do not mean that a description should actually be shared by a community (although this is typically what happens), but that a description must be communicable among social agents. For example: shares(Napolitano, LawForGovernmentFormation, 2006)

is member of
type: ObjectProperty
inverse of: has member
domain: Entity
range: Collection

has member
type: ObjectProperty
comment: The entities that are classified by a same concept or a same set of concepts, either defined by the same description or not, are easier to compare, and can be put in a same collection. The memberOf relation holds between collections and entities. The following example: (memberOf(D'Alema, ItalianGovernmentCollective, 2007) asserts that D'Alema is a member of the Italian Government collective in 2007. Italian Government collective is intended here as the collection of all members from a particular Italian government. Note that ItalianGovernmentCollective is not the same entity as ItalianGovernment, which is a social agent.
inverse of: is member of
range: Entity
domain: Collection

interprets
type: ObjectProperty
range: Ground entity
comment: The generic relation of interpretation between an agent and an entity at some time is a projection of c.DnS. In its full unfolding, it depends on the constructive assumption by which interpretation of entities by some agent at some time is logically dependent on descriptions, situations, concepts, collectives, and information objects.
inverse of: is interpreted by
domain: Social agent

is interpreted by
type: ObjectProperty
domain: Ground entity
inverse of: interprets
range: Social agent

describes
type: ObjectProperty
comment: Compositional projections can be defined from primitive ones. The projection 'describes' is compositionally defined, and states that a Description describes an Entity when the latter isClassifiedBy a Concept that isDefinedIn the Description
domain: Description
range: Entity
inverse of: is described in

instantiates
type: ObjectProperty
inverse of: is instantiated by
comment: A SocialAgent A1 instantiates another A2 when A1 is identical to A2 at a certain time. For example, Prodi2 Government instantiated the Italian Government in 2007.
range: Social agent
domain: Social agent

is instantiated by
type: ObjectProperty
range: Social agent
domain: Social agent
inverse of: instantiates

is redescribed by
type: ObjectProperty
range: Social agent
domain: Situation
inverse of: redescribes

redescribes
type: ObjectProperty
domain: Social agent
comment: The application of epistemological layering is fundamental in c.DnS, since it accounts for the role of agents in the application of a description to some situation, i.e., in order to include the ontological commitment within an ontologys domain of discourse. In practice, ontological commitment postulates the action of some agent that has the capability and the intention to (re)describe a situation. This is formalized by means of the relation 'redescribes', which is the projection of c.DnS over social agents and situations. For example: redescribes(SherlockHolmes, HoundOfBaskervilleFact, 1890)
range: Situation
inverse of: is redescribed by

is concept used in
type: ObjectProperty
range: Description
domain: Concept
inverse of: uses concept

uses concept
type: ObjectProperty
inverse of: is concept used in
comment: The usesConcept relation reflects the fact that, besides defining concepts, descriptions can also use concepts defined by some other description. For example, uses(ChiefOfStateVisitEtiquette, MasterOfCeremonies)
range: Concept
domain: Description

covers
type: ObjectProperty
comment: The concept(s) that classify all the members of a collection are said to cover a collection. the following statement is about the fact that the collective ItalianMinisterCouncil has all members that are classified by the concept Minister: covers(Minister, ItalianMinisterCouncil)
domain: Concept
range: Collection
inverse of: is covered by

is assumed by
type: ObjectProperty
range: Social agent
sub property of: is shared by
inverse of: assumes
domain: Schematic entity

assumes
type: ObjectProperty
domain: Social agent
comment: Assumes is here proposed as a more specific way of sharing a description. For a full definition of assumption we should axiomatize the relation between assumptions of descriptions, and beliefs about situations: while sharing a description is certainly required to an agent in order to believe a situation that satisfies that description, it is not sufficient to conclude that sharing is sufficient to that agent to actually believe it. The issue is even subtler, because we cannot either conclude that assuming that description is sufficient to believe that situation, since there can be additional constraints that make a situation unbelievable. Conversely, there can be cases in which a situation is believed without assuming the description it satisfies. We do not attempt an axiomatization of these epistemological issues here. For example: assumes(Stahl, FlogistonTheory) assumes(Lavoisier, OxygenTheory)
sub property of: shares
inverse of: is assumed by
range: Schematic entity

acts for
type: ObjectProperty
range: Social agent
comment: The actsFor relation holds for entities and social agents. It formalizes the intuition of acting for a social agent, i.e. the mapping of entities as actors that are classified by concepts that are deputed by a social agent (such a rule cannot be encoded in OWL1.0). It is temporalized in FOL (not in OWL1.0 for missing expressivity). For example, actsFor(Napolitano, ItalianState, 2007).
domain: Entity
inverse of: is acted by

classifies
type: ObjectProperty
comment: The classif ies relation is the projection of c.DnS maximal relation over concepts and entities at a certain time. It formalizes the intuition of redescribing an entity, i.e. when a (new) cognitive context is applied to something that already has an identity in actually occurring situations in the life of a cognitive agent. For example, the following statement has the consequence that the social agent Napolitano is provided with the additional identity of ItalianPresidentRole for 2007: classifies(ItalianPresidentRole, Napolitano, 2007) Time variables cannot be expressed in OWL (only binary relations are available); for time indexing, see the ontology: ground.owl.
range: Entity
domain: Concept
inverse of: is classified by

is referent of
type: ObjectProperty
inverse of: is about
range: Information object
domain: Entity

is about
type: ObjectProperty
comment: Aboutness states that, if the description expressed by an information object is satisfied by a situation, the information object can be about any entity that is in the setting of said situation. Such composition cannot be expressed in OWL. For example, the Italian Constitution is (also) about Italy.
inverse of: is referent of
domain: Information object
range: Entity

introduces
type: ObjectProperty
range: Social agent
comment: Descriptions can also introduce social agents, which are here entities such as persons, organizations, institutional figures, etc. For example: introduces(ItalianConstitution, ItalianGovernment) introduces(FIATLegalConstitution, FIAT_SpA) Although the introduction of agents falls under the relationality principle, like definition and usage, it has a different intuition from definition and usage, because concepts and agents are disjoint classes, where the differences are: agents can share descriptions, concepts can not agents (specially organizations) typically depute concepts, and not vice versa social agents are acted by some physical agent that is classified by some concept deputed by that social agent. Concepts are not acted by anything.
domain: Description
inverse of: is introduced by

is characterized by
type: ObjectProperty
domain: Collection
range: Concept
inverse of: characterizes

characterizes
type: ObjectProperty
range: Collection
domain: Concept
inverse of: is characterized by
comment: Many collections can have subcollections covered by different concepts. In that case, we say that those concepts characterize the collection. Since subcollections can change without affecting the identity of a collection, characterizes is temporalized (time indexing cannot be encoded in OWL1.0).

is deputed by
type: ObjectProperty
range: Social agent
domain: Concept
inverse of: deputes

deputes
type: ObjectProperty
domain: Social agent
comment: Social agents can depute concepts (e.g. roles) that are supposed to enact the actions of a social agent. For example, a telecom company can depute the role engineer that can classify certain entities (typically, persons with appropriate curricula) to act for the company. This is a legal example: deputes(ItalianState, ItalianPresident, 2006)
range: Concept
inverse of: is deputed by

defines
type: ObjectProperty
comment: The defines relation is the projection of c.DnS over descriptions and concepts. Defines formalizes the intuition of a gestalt, or cognitive context, that gives meaning to the parts of a perceived situation. Some examples are modelled here: defines(ItalianConstitution, Minister) defines(LinneanTaxonomy, Species) defines(CNRRegulation, SeniorResearcher)
domain: Description
range: Concept
inverse of: is defined in

expresses
type: ObjectProperty
range: Schematic entity
inverse of: is expressed by
domain: Information object
comment: The expresses relation is the projection of c.DnS over information objects and schematic entities at a time. It formalizes the intuition that every description is communicable in principle. For example: expresses(ItalianConstitutionText, ItalianConstitution, 1946)

is proper part of
type: TransitiveProperty
inverse of: has proper part
range: Entity
domain: Entity
type: ObjectProperty