Elements at the metamodel level from different perspectives

Authors

  • Linair Maria Campos Universidade Federal Fluminense
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/analesdoc.677461
Keywords: Metamodels, Conceptual models, Knowledge organization systems

Supporting Agencies

  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Abstract

Elements of representation at the metamodel level are inputs that can be consistently used in the construction of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) for specific domains, and whose adoption is linked to ontological and epistemological viewpoints, which are not always made explicit. In this context, the aim of this paper is to define, from multiple perspectives, the basic elements situated at the metamodel level and their theoretical assumptions. From a methodological standpoint, the study adopts a qualitative approach to the problem and, in terms of its objectives, is exploratory in nature. Regarding technical procedures, it is characterized as bibliographic research. As a result, a synthesis of metamodel-level elements discussed from various viewpoints is presented. It is concluded that understanding these elements, along with the ontological and epistemological perspectives that underpin them, is essential for the development of accurate and interoperable KOS.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Metrics
Views/Downloads
  • Abstract
    0
  • PDF-ENG
    0

References

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

Published
03-07-2026
How to Cite
Campos, L. M. (2026). Elements at the metamodel level from different perspectives. Information Science Journal, 29. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesdoc.677461
Issue
Section
Articles