Elementos a nivel de metamodelo desde diferentes perspectivas
Agencias de apoyo
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)
Resumen
Los elementos de representación a nivel de metamodelo son insumos que pueden utilizarse de manera coherente en la construcción de Sistemas de Organización del Conocimiento (SOC) para dominios específicos, y cuya adopción está vinculada a perspectivas ontológicas y epistemológicas que no siempre se explicitan. En este contexto, el objetivo de este artículo es definir, desde múltiples perspectivas, los elementos básicos situados en el nivel de metamodelo y sus fundamentos teóricos. Desde el punto de vista metodológico, adopta un enfoque cualitativo del problema y, en cuanto a sus objetivos, tiene carácter exploratorio. En relación con los procedimientos técnicos, se caracteriza como una investigación bibliográfica. Como resultado, se presenta una síntesis de los elementos a nivel de metamodelo discutidos desde diversas perspectivas. Se concluye que comprender estos elementos, junto con las perspectivas ontológicas y epistemológicas que los sustentan, es esencial para el desarrollo de sistemas de organización del conocimiento precisos e interoperables.
Descargas
-
Resumen0
-
PDF-ENG 0
Citas
Abbagnano, Nicola (2007). Dictionary of philosophy. São Paulo, SP: Martins Fontes.
Almeida, Mauricio Barcellos (2021). Ontological theories for modeling. Fronteiras da Representação do Conhecimen-to, 1(2), 95-126.
Armstrong, David Malet (1989). Universals: An opinionated introduction. London, England: Westview Press.
Arp, Robert, Smith, Barry & Spear, Andrew (2015). Building ontologies with basic formal ontology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bardin, Lawrence (2011). Content analysis. São Paulo, SP: Edições 70.
Bealer, George (1998). Concept possession. Philosophical Issues, 9, 331-338.
Berkeley, George (2002). A treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge (David Wilkins, Ed.). Dublin, Ire-land: Trinity College.
Bittner, Thomas, Donnelly, Mark & Smith, Barry (2004). Individuals, universals, collections: On the foundational relations of ontology. In Achille Varzi & Laure Vieu (Eds.), Formal ontology in information systems: Proceedings of the third international conference (FOIS) (pp. 37-48). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
Branquinho, João, Murcho, Desiderio, & Gomes, Nuno Garoupa. (Eds.). (2005). Encyclopedia of logical-philosophical terms. São Paulo, SP: Martins Fontes.
Brower, Jeffrey (2016). Aquinas on the problem of universals. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 92(3), 715-735. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12176
Calemi, Fabrice (Ed.). (2016). Metaphysics and scientific realism: Essays in honor of David Malet Armstrong. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Campbell, Keith (1981). The metaphysic of abstract particulars. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 6, 477-488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.1981.tb00453.x
Campos, Linair Maria (2025). Concept in different meanings: Impacts on the Records in Contexts ontology. In Brazilian Conference on Knowledge Organization - ISKO Brasil, 8, Canela. Brazil: ISKO. https://cip.brapci.inf.br//download/351990
Chadha, Monima (2014). On knowing universals: The Nyāya way. Philosophy East and West, 64(2), 287-302. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44135572
Crane, John (2003). Locke's theory of classification. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 11(2), 249-259. https://philpapers.org/archive/CRALTO.pdf
Dahlberg, Ingetraut. (1978a). A referent-oriented analytical concept theory of interconcept. International Classification, 5(3), 142-150. https://storage.imrpress.com/imr/journal/KO/article/506826/1752851142083.pdf
Dahlberg, Ingetraut. (1978b). Ontical structures and universal classification. Bangalore, India: Sarada Ranganathan Endowment.
De Boni, Luis Alberto. (2008). On the life and work of Duns Scotus. Veritas (Porto Alegre), 53(3). https://philpapers.org/rec/BONSAV
Bunge, Mario. (2012). Dicionário de filosofia. São Paulo: Perspectiva.
Ferrater-Mora, José (1977). Fictions, universals, and abstract entities. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 37(3), 353-367. https://www.ferratermora.org/essa_abstract-entities.html
Goodman, Nelson, & Quine, Willard Van Orman (1947). Steps toward a constructive nominalism. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 12(4), 105-122. https://sites.pitt.edu/~rbrandom/Courses/2023%20Sellars/Sellars%20texts/Goodman-StepsTowardConstructive-1947.pdf
Grenon, Pierre, & Smith, Barry. (2004). SNAP and SPAN: Towards dynamic spatial ontology. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 4(1), 69-103. http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/SNAP_SPAN.pdf
Grossmann, Reinhardt (1960). Conceptualism. The Review of Metaphysics, 14(2), 243-254. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20123818
Guizzardi, Giancarlo, & Zamborlini, Veruska (2012). A common foundational theory for bridging two levels in ontol-ogy-driven conceptual modeling. In Software Language Engineering - SLE 2012 (pp. 286-310). Berlin: Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-36089-3_17
Guizzardi, Giancarlo., et al. (2021). Types and taxonomic structures in conceptual modeling: A novel ontological theory and engineering support. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2021.101891
Guizzardi, Giancarlo (2005). Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. [Doctoral dissertation]. Uni-versity of Twente. https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/ontological-foundations-for-structural-conceptual-models/
Hjorland, Birger (2009). Concept theory. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1519-1536. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21082
International Organization for Standardization. (1969). ISO/R 1087:1969 - Vocabulary of terminology. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.
Joseph, Miriam (2008). O trivium: The liberal arts of logic, grammar and rhetoric (1st ed.). São Paulo, SP: É Realiza-ções, Editora, Livraria e Distribuidora, Ltda.
Inwagen, Peter. van. (2024). Metaphysics (5th ed.). London; New York: Routledge.
Johansson, Ingvar (2004). Ontological investigations: An inquiry into the categories of nature, man and society (2nd ed.). Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.
Kant, Immanuel. (2001). Critique of pure reason (A. F. Morujão, Trans.). Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
Kleineberg, Michael (2013). The blind men and the elephant: Towards an organization of epistemic con-texts. Knowledge Organization, 40(5), 340-364. https://cybersemiotics.org/sites/default/files/BlindMen_Elephant%20KO.pdf
Klemke, Elmer Daniel (1960). Universals and particulars in a phenomenalist ontology. Philosophy of Science, 27(3), 254-261.
Klima, Gyula (2022). The medieval problem of universals. In Edward Zalta (Ed.). The Stanford encyclopedia of phi-losophy (Spring 2022 ed.). Stanford: Metaphysics Re-search. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/universals-medieval/
Kühne, Thomas (2006). Matters of (meta-) modeling. Software and Systems Modeling, 5, 369-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-006-0017-9
Lewis, David Kellogg (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251768550_David_Lewis_On_the_Plurality_of_Worlds
Locke, John (1975). An essay concerning human understanding (P. H. Nidditch, Ed.). Oxford University Press. https://www.philotextes.info/spip/IMG/pdf/essay_concerning_human_understanding.pdf
Lowe, Edward Jonathan (2002). A survey of metaphysics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. https://dokumen.pub/a-survey-of-metaphysics-1nbsped-0198752539-9780198752530.html
Machado, Liliana Maria Oliveira, Martínez-Ávila, Daniel, Almeida, Mauricio Barcellos, & Borges, Maria Margarida (2023). Towards a moderate realist foundation for ontological knowledge organization systems: The question of the naturalness of classifications. Journal of Information Science, 49(4), 537-552. https://silice.es/publication/9cb15ac9-6d88-45de-8314-91478b32b4e6
McGill, Vernon Joseph (1934). The realm of universals. The Philosophical Review, 43(3), 245-257.
Noy, Natalya Fridman, & McGuinness, Deborah (2001). Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology. Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report KSL-01-05 / SMI-2001-0880.
Ogden, Charles Kay, & Richards, Ivor Armstrong (1946). The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of lan-guage upon thought and of the science of symbolism (8th ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. https://archive.org/details/meaningofmeaning00ogde_2/page/n9/mode/2up
Plantinga, Alvin (1987). Two concepts of modality: Modal realism and modal reductionism. Philosophical Perspectives, 1, 189-231. https://andrewmbailey.com/ap/Two_Concepts.pdf
Poli, Roberto (2002). Glancing at the problems of contemporary ontology. Scire: Representación y organización del conocimiento, 8(1), 17-40. https://ibersid.eu/ojs/index.php/scire/article/view/1157/1139
Porello, Davide, & Guizzardi, Giancarlo. (2017). Towards a cognitive semantics of types. In AIIA 2017 - Advances in Artificial Intelligence: Proceedings of the XVIth International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, Bari, Italy, Nov. 14-17, 2017 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10640, pp. 428-440). https://nemo.inf.ufes.br/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/towards_a_cognitive_semantics_of_types_2017.pdf
Psillos, Stathis (1999). Scientific realism: How science tracks truth. London, England; New York, NY: Routledge.
Ridi, Riccardo (2016). Phenomena or noumena? Objective and subjective aspects in knowledge organiza-tion. Knowledge Organization, 43(4), 239-253. https://storage.imrpress.com/imr/journal/KO/article/505024/1752845927590.pdf
Rorty, Richard (1980). Pragmatism, relativism, and irrationalism. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philo-sophical Association, 53(6), 717, 719-738. https://sites.pitt.edu/~rbrandom/Courses/Antirepresentationalism%20(2020)/Texts/Rorty%20Pragmatism%20Relativism%20and%20Irrationalism.pdf
Rosch, Elleanor (1978). Principles of categorization. In Cognition and categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum. https://commonweb.unifr.ch/artsdean/pub/gestens/f/as/files/4610/9778_083247.pdf
Saint-Andre, Peter (2002). Conceptualism in Abelard and Rand. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 4(1), 123-140. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41560206
Simons, Peter (1994). Particulars in particular clothing: Three trope theories of substance. Philosophy and Phenome-nological Research, 54(3), 553-575. https://philarchive.org/rec/SIMPIP
Sire, James (2004). Naming the elephant: Worldview as a concept. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. https://archive.org/details/namingelephantwo0000sire
Smith, Barry, & Ceusters, Werner (2010). Ontological realism: A methodology for coordinated evolution of scientific ontologies. Applied Ontology, 5, 139-188. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2010-0079
Smith, Barry, et al. (2006). Towards a reference terminology for ontology research and development in the biomedi-cal domain. In Proceedings of the KR-MED 2006 Workshop, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, CEUR (pp. 57-65). https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-222/krmed2006-p07.pdf
Smith, Barry (1997). On substances, accidents and universals: In defense of a constituent ontology. Philosophical Papers, 27, 105-127. https://scispace.com/pdf/on-substances-accidents-and-universals-in-defence-of-a-1npz3yicyd.pdf
Smith, Barry, Ceusters, Werner, & Temmerman, Rita (2005). Wüsteria. Studies in Health Technology and Informat-ics, 116, 647-652.
Smith, Barry (2008). Chapter 4: New desiderata for biomedical terminologies. In Kate Munn & Barry Smith (Eds.), Applied ontology: An introduction (pp. 83-108). Ontos. https://scispace.com/papers/new-desiderata-for-biomedical-terminologies-2v56963ltf
Smith, Barry (2010). On classifying material entities in basic formal ontology. In Ceusters, Werner & Smith, Barry (Eds.). Interdisciplinary Ontology. Proceedings of the Third Interdisciplinary Ontology Meeting. Tokyo: Keio University Press. (pp. 1-13). https://philarchive.org/rec/SMIOCM
Smith, Barry, et al. (2015). Basic formal ontology 2.0: Specification and user's guide. [BFO Project.
Spear, Aldo (2006). Ontology for the twenty first century: An introduction with recommendations. Saarbrucken, Germany: The Institute for Formal Ontology and Medical Information Science.
Steup, Matthias, & Ram, Neta (2024). Epistemology. In Edward Zalta & Uriel Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford ency-clopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab.
Strawson, Peter Frederik (2003). Individuals: an essay in descriptive metaphysics. London: Routledge.
Tôrres, Maria do Rosário (2008). The concept of the universal in Peter Abelard: Its historical and philosophical impli-cations. In ANPUH-MG Regional History Meeting, 16. Juiz de Fora, Brazil: ANPUH-MG.
Vollmer, Gerhard (1984). Mesocosm and objective knowledge - On problems solved by evolutionary epistemology. In Franz Manfred Wuketits (Ed.), Concepts and approaches in evolutionary epistemology: Towards an evolutionary theory of knowledge (pp. 69-121). Dordrecht: Springer. https://kli.ac.at/webroot/files/file/Evolution%20%26%20Cognition/2003%209-2.pdf
Vollmer, Gerhard (2017). Why do theories fail? The best argument for realism. In Evandro Agazzi (Ed.), Varieties of scientific realism: Objectivity and truth in science (pp. 165-175). Cham: Springer. https://files.znu.edu.ua/files/Bibliobooks/Inshi65/0048263.pdf
Welty, Christopher, & Guarino, Nicola. (2001). Supporting ontological analysis of taxonomic relationships. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 39, 51-74. https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~jm/2507S/Readings/Welty.pdf
Whitehead, Alfred North (1978). Process and reality: An essay in cosmology (Corrected ed., David Griffin & Donald Sherburne, Eds.). New York: Free Press. https://www.palmyreoomen.nl/uploads/pdf%27s/A.N.Whitehead_Process-and-Reality.pdf
Zalta, Edward (1983). Abstract objects: An introduction to axiomatic metaphysics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. https://mally.stanford.edu/abstract-objects.pdf

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Las obras que se publican en esta revista están sujetas a los siguientes términos:
1. El Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia (Editum) conserva los derechos patrimoniales ('copyright') de las obras publicadas, y favorece y permite la reutilización de las mismas bajo la licencia de uso.
2. Las obras se publican en la edición electrónica de la revista bajo la licencia Creative Commons Atribución Internacional CC BY 4.0. Se puede copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato y remezclar, transformar y crear a partir del material para cualquier finalidad, incluso comercial.


