BORO is a metaphysically grounded foundational ontology developed specifically for use with computer systems (a foundational ontology is a system of general domain-independent ontological categories that can form a foundation for domain-specific ontologies; some but not all of these are grounded in metaphysics) and an associated methodology for legacy re-engineering systems. It emerged from a number of system replacement projects that started in the late 1980s. It was developed to mine the ontology-based conceptual models from legacy systems for use in the development of next generation systems.

Once the re-engineering methodology was established in the initial projects, questions arose as to where it could usefully be deployed. To answer this, it would help to understand why it was effective; after all, it would be hard to find a more abstract and esoteric subject than metaphysics – and one that does not immediately seem related to computing. Furthermore metaphysics is a broad subject, it would be good to understand better what areas of metaphysics are important, why they are important and how they are useful. It would also be good to have a better idea of where in computing metaphysics could play a useful role.

The purpose of this position paper is to sketch out how BORO has, over the decades, developed a view that provides answers to these questions (with no claim that this is the only way to answer them). This view is framed by two related themes. The first is that a new kind of information quality – which we label ‘computerate’ – is needed for computer systems and the second that metaphysics provides the right apparatus for grounding foundational ontologies that can be used to produce this ‘computerate’ information.

Launched in July 2018, the National Digital Twin programme was set up to deliver key recommendations of the National Infrastructure Commission 2017 “Data for the Public Good Report”

• to steer the successful development and adoption of the Information Management Framework for the built environment
• to create an ecosystem of connected digital twins – a national digital twin– which opens the opportunity to release value for society, the economy, business and the environment

This presentation introduces the Core Constructional Ontology (CCO). It firstly provides the background to the development of this ontology. It secondly, provides a summary of the approach to the development, looking at its key features and giving an overview of the formalisation.

This is the first in a series of presentations that should be seen as an integrated whole rather than a collection of separate presentations. It is an introduction to the whole and covers the Information Quality Management angle which is the motivation for our interest in 4-Dimensionalism. Later presentations will go down through the 7 circles of information management showing how 4D permeates what we are doing in developing and using 4-Dimensionalism on the National Digital Twin programme.

This presentation shows a foundational ontology that aims to underpin a range of enterprise systems in a consistent and coherent manner and takes data-driven re-engineering as its natural starting point for domain ontology building. It has two closely intertwined components, a foundational ontology and a re-engineering methodology.

The origin and predominant area of application has been the enterprise. Suitability has been demonstrated in many industrial projects across a range of business domains including finance, oil and gas, and defense.

The presentation is an introduction the paper: “A Framework for Composition”, which outlines ‘a step towards a foundation for assembly’It:

• is a contribution to the Foundation Data Model (FDM), which
• is part of the Information Management Foundation (IMF), which
• is part of UK’s National Digital Twin programme (NDTp)

The paper aims to ensure composition (and so the FDM) is built upon a solid foundation. At the core of the notion of a component breakdown is the component as an integral (dependent) part of the composite whole. This has a rich underlying formal structure – which is described in the paper and outlined in this presentation. This structure, in turn, provides a framework for assessing how well a data model (or ontology) has captured the main elements of the structure enabling both the assessment of existing models as well as the design of new models
The paper is technical with a focus on the rich formal structure of the abstract general component breakdown architecture. This presentation provides a short overview of the concerns the paper addresses as such, it provides a simpler introduction to the paper.
Presentation Structure:

• What is composition?
• How is composition modelled?
• What kind of formal structure is emerging?
• The proposed formal structure

The multi-level modelling community’s raison d'être is its vision of the ubiquity and importance of multi-level-types: the ascending levelled hierarchy of types in conceptual models; starting with types of things, then types of these types, then types of these types of types, and so on. The community both promotes this vision and investigates this hierarchy, looking at how it can be accommodated into existing frameworks. In this paper, we consider a specific domain, coordinate systems’ characterising options. While we recognise that, unsurprisingly, this domain contains a ubiquity of multi-level-types, our interest is in investigating a new and different approach to understanding them. For this we needed to develop a new framework. We devise one focussing on this case, based upon scaling down to simple compositional algorithms (called constructors) to form a new, radically simpler foundation. From the simple operations of these constructors emerges the scaled up multi-level structures of the domain. We show how the simple operations of simple constructors give rise to compositional connections that shape – and so explain – different complex hierarchies and levels, including the familiar multi-level-types and relatively unknown multi-level-tuples. The framework crystallises these connections as metaphysical grounding relations. We look at how simple differences in the shape and operation of constructors give rise to different varieties of these hierarchies and levels – and the impact this has. We also look at how the constructional approach reveals the differences between foundational constructors and derived constructors built from the foundational constructors – and show that conceptual modeling’s generalisation relations are secondary and dependent upon the more foundational instantiation relations. Based upon this, we assemble a constructional foundational ontology using the BORO Foundational Ontology as our starting point. We then use this to reveal and explain the formal levels and hierarchies that underlie the options for characterising coordinate systems.

This Developing Thin Slices report provides a technical description of the process at the heart of the Thin Slices Methodology with the aim of providing a common technical resource for training and guidance in this area. As such it forms part of the wider effort to provide common resources for the development of the Information Management Framework.
It focuses on the process at the core of the Thin Slices Methodology. In particular, it identifies a requirement for a minimal foundation for these kinds of processes. In the companion report, Top-Level Categories (Partridge, forthcoming), the foundation adopted by the Information Management Framework is described. Together, the two reports cover the details of the developing thin slices process.

This report identifies the top categories that characterise the top-level ontology that will underpin the Information Management Framework’s Foundation Data Model (where top categories exclusively and exhaustively divide the world’s entities by their fundamental kinds or natures). With these in place, the IMF’s top-level ontology has been characterised.

A thin slices approach (described in Developing Thin Slices (Partridge, forthcoming)) has been adopted for the development of the foundation data model. The category structure described in this report is being used as the foundation for that process. With these categories in place, that process has a firm foundation.

In various disciplines, when working on larger projects there is a tradition of thinking in terms of an architecture (E.g. Enterprise / Systems / Software Architecture).

Firstly a meta-methodological point; this suggests a good methodology for approaching large ontology projects should have an architectural component.

Here architecture is used in a loose sense, there is extensive discussion on what exactly an architecture is, which is not directly relevant to the points made. Agreeing it used in a loose sense avoids this – however interesting a rabbit hole it seems.
The points are illustrated the points with examples from the development and application of top ontologies such as BORO, IDEAS and MODEM.

In the first of this two-part Executive Update series,1 I took a swipe at the currently accepted approach to systems development. My argument was that if a system is to adequately support a business, the information it handles must be rigorously derived from the business itself. By producing a process model, then an information model, then a data model, and then handing it all over to an implementation team, we can end up somewhat removed from the reality of the business. The people responsible for each of these steps in the chain usually don’t have a good understanding of each other’s specialities, and the result can be “Chinese whispers.”

I also noted there are a number of legacy systems out there that are decades old and attempts to replace them with modern technology have failed. The fact that the old systems are so useful is perhaps more of a mystery than the fact that today’s technology seems to offer nothing to beat them. Another trait of the these old systems that have stood the test of time is that they (mostly) seem to have been developed inhouse, in the days before there was a specialist IT function in the business. This is even stranger. How can a system that’s 20 to 30 years old and developed by a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs outperform the latest technology, designed and developed by highly specialized information technologists and business analysts?

This report on the MODEM project is in three sections: 1) An executive summary that explains the motivation for the MODEM work. 2) An introduction to the real world analysis that was done as part of the MODEM work, which gives a deeper understanding of the ideas that underlie it and provides examples of their use. 3) A detailed technical IDEAS analysis explaining the IDEAS MODEM model. The detailed technical analysis focuses on the modelling of behaviour. It aims to re-engineer the UML behaviour model, which has no real world semantics, into an ontological foundation for the modelling of behaviour.

Each of the sections builds upon the previous section and is aimed at a different audience. The first section is aimed at management who need to understand the basis for the MODEM work. The second section is aimed at users who need to understand the issues that the MODEM work raises without delving into the technical details of the IDEAS model. The third and final section provides the detailed IDEAS analysis for the technical experts.

The presentation covers:

• Background
• Space-Time Component (plus Names)
• First workstream – Foundations: Quick View
• Second workstream - Overview
• Mapping General : Spatial Objects
• Part 42 – Mapping: Spatial Objects
• OS Open Names: Mapping
• Relations (Foundation Extension)

The presentation covers:

• Is there a workable UML profile for managing ontologies?
• What should the output of such a model be like?
• (we covered how neither UML nor OWL is ideal for this
• there are certainly problems generating OWL ontologies from the current TC211 UML profile
• the TC211 use of UML could be improved, even within its own profile)
• What Chris brings is experience (in his domain) of using UML to create/manage ontologies
• (quite probably not expressed in OWL)

This describes the IMFs approach to building a four-dimensional top-level ontology (TLO). It starts with the background, describing the Information Management Framework (IMF) and its approach to top level ontologies; with a focus on fundamental ontological choices that typically boil down to a choice whether to stratify or unify. It outlines the TLO use case - 'Euclidean' Standards - and ontological scope it creates. It the situates the TLO in the Foundation Data Layer of the IMF - built upon the ground layer - the Core Constructional Ontology (CCO). It then describes the CCO and the TLO in terms of its components.
Presentation Structure

• Introducing the IMF Team
• Background
  
  • Information Management Framework
  • Choice-based framework
• TLO Initial Use
• Situating the TLO in the IMF
• Data Section: Core Constructional Ontology
• Data Section: Top Level Ontology