pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.08724 · v1 · pith:U5OXCR22new · submitted 2019-06-20 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.DB

Generic Ontology Design Patterns at Work

Bernd Krieg-Br\"uckner , Till Mossakowski , Fabian Neuhaus This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 19:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.DB
keywords ontology design patternsGeneric DOLDOLRole patternontology compositionparameter instantiationmodular ontologiesHeterogeneous Tool Set
0
0 comments X

The pith

An extension of DOL called Generic DOL supports defining ontology design patterns with parameters that can be instantiated in host ontologies.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper defines Generic Ontology Design Patterns in an extension of the Distributed Ontology Language. The patterns accept parameters including classes, properties, individuals, or entire ontologies, which are then replaced by concrete arguments from a host ontology. The method is shown in action by creating a generic version of the well-known Role design pattern. It further explains how to build more complex patterns by composing simpler ones through successive instantiations. If successful, this would allow ontology engineers to create and reuse modular components more systematically across different projects.

Core claim

Generic Ontology Design Patterns, GODPs, are defined in Generic DOL, an extension of DOL, and implemented using Heterogeneous Tool Set. Parameters such as classes, properties, individuals, or whole ontologies may be instantiated with arguments in a host ontology. The potential is illustrated with the Role design pattern, and larger GODPs may be composed by instantiating smaller GODPs.

What carries the argument

Generic DOL, the extension that permits parameterised patterns to be defined and then instantiated by substituting arguments into a host ontology.

Load-bearing premise

That Generic DOL can handle parameter instantiation in a way that is consistent with the semantics of DOL and executable by the Heterogeneous Tool Set without additional unstated changes.

What would settle it

Running the Heterogeneous Tool Set on an instantiation of the Role GODP within a test ontology and verifying that the output ontology accurately captures the intended role relationships without introducing contradictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.08724 by Bernd Krieg-Br\"uckner, Fabian Neuhaus, Till Mossakowski.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: DOL Example, and Simple Relation GODP and its application renaming, module extraction, and many more. Thus, DOL is not yet another ontology language, but a meta-language, which allows to define and manipulate ontologies and networks of ontologies. DOL can be used on top of a variety of languages, in particular OWL 2. The left column in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Structure of the Role ODP from [13]. Prefix: : <http://www.ontohub.org/godp/> 2 Ontology: <Role_Original> Class: Role 4 SubClassOf: roleProvidedBy max 1 owl:Thing, rolePerformedBy max 1 owl:Thing, 6 hasTemporalExtent some TemporalExtent, hasTemporalExtent only TemporalExtent 8 SubClassOf: roleProvidedBy some owl:Thing or rolePerformedBy some owl:Thing 10 Class: TemporalExtent DisjointWith: Role ObjectPrope… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Role ODP from [13] in OWL 2 Manchester syntax 2 Manchester syntax). To summarise, in [13] a role is an entity that has some temporal extent; it is provided by at most one entity and it is performed by at most one entity; and either an provider or a performer does exist.3 In [13] ODPs are instantiated by subsumption. E.g., for an instantiation of Role for Agent the axioms in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Agent defined as instantiation of Role via subsumption in [13] Note that Agent may be considered as a new ODP, as done in [13]. However, it is an instantiation of the Role pattern in the sense that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Role GODP with instantiation via subsumption rences of “[” or “,” are turned into “_”, and (trailing) occurrences of “]” are dropped. Thus, the stratified version of ThematicRoles contains three differ￾ent classes, namely RolePerformedBySome_Agent, RolePerformedBySome_Patient, and RolePerformedBySome_Instrument. If we would substitute the parametrised name RolePerformedBySome[Performer] by a ‘normal’ c… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Role GODP with instantiation via parametrisation The parametrisation strategy for the instantiation of ODPs solves both of these issues. As we have seen in Section 2 the application of a parametrised ontology to some arguments leads to a new ontology, in which the parameters are substituted by their arguments. Hence, the generic terms in the GODP are no longer occurring in the resulting ontology. Furth… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Result of RoleGODPParametrisation[Class: ProfRole][Class: Professor][Class: University] 1 Class: MotherRole SubClassOf: rolePerformedBy_Mother max 1 Mother, 3 hasTemporalExtent some TemporalExtent, hasTemporalExtent only TemporalExtent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Result of RoleGODPParametrisation[Class: MotherRole][Class: Mother][] we need to distinguish between the performers and providers, the occurrences of owl:Thing in Role_Original in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: GODPs ScopedPartialFunctionWithInverse and hasTemporalExtent 3.4. Patterns Within Patterns The presentation of the Role ODP in diagram in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: RoleGODPDecomposed consists of a decomposition of the GODP in 3 subparts of the class that is provided as argument for the parameter Role have temporal extent. Lines 4-5 assert that the variant of rolePerformedBy that is generated de￾pending on the argument for Performer is a scoped partial function (and has an appropriate inverse). Lines 6-7 assert the same for roleProvidedBy. These three applications of… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Generic Ontology Design Patterns, GODPs, are defined in Generic DOL, an extension of DOL, the Distributed Ontology, Model and Specification Language, and implemented using Heterogeneous Tool Set. Parameters such as classes, properties, individuals, or whole ontologies may be instantiated with arguments in a host ontology. The potential of Generic DOL is illustrated with GODPs for an example from the literature, namely the Role design pattern. We also discuss how larger GODPs may be composed by instantiating smaller GODPs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Generic Ontology Design Patterns (GODPs) defined in Generic DOL, an extension of the Distributed Ontology, Model and Specification Language (DOL), and implemented using the Heterogeneous Tool Set (HETS). Parameters such as classes, properties, individuals, or whole ontologies may be instantiated with arguments in a host ontology. The approach is illustrated with the Role design pattern, and the composition of larger GODPs by instantiating smaller ones is discussed.

Significance. If the extension is formally sound, the work could advance reusable and composable ontology patterns in knowledge engineering, building on established DOL and HETS infrastructure. However, the absence of any model-theoretic details, proofs, or verification in the provided description limits the assessed contribution to a high-level proposal rather than a verified mechanism.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that Generic DOL soundly extends DOL to support parameter substitution (classes, properties, individuals, ontologies) and composition while preserving consistency is unsupported; no model-theoretic account, substitution rules, colimit construction, or proof of conservative extension under DOL's heterogeneous semantics is provided.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The implementation claim using HETS cannot be assessed for absence of hidden inconsistencies because the manuscript supplies no verification details, formal semantics for instantiation, or error analysis of the resulting theories.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. The feedback correctly identifies that the abstract makes claims about soundness and implementation without supporting formal details in the text. We respond point by point below, agreeing to adjust the scope of the claims to better reflect the manuscript's focus on illustration and application.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that Generic DOL soundly extends DOL to support parameter substitution (classes, properties, individuals, ontologies) and composition while preserving consistency is unsupported; no model-theoretic account, substitution rules, colimit construction, or proof of conservative extension under DOL's heterogeneous semantics is provided.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript provides no model-theoretic account, substitution rules, or proofs. The paper is an application-oriented introduction to GODPs via Generic DOL, with the Role pattern and composition examples. The extension is presented as building directly on DOL's existing colimit-based heterogeneous semantics, but we will revise the abstract to remove the word 'soundly' and qualify that formal verification of the extension is outside the current scope, to be addressed in follow-up work. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The implementation claim using HETS cannot be assessed for absence of hidden inconsistencies because the manuscript supplies no verification details, formal semantics for instantiation, or error analysis of the resulting theories.

    Authors: We acknowledge the absence of verification details or error analysis for the HETS implementation. The manuscript uses HETS only to demonstrate practical instantiation of the examples; no claim is made about exhaustive consistency checking. We will revise the abstract and add a brief note in the text clarifying that the implementation serves illustrative purposes and that consistency of the resulting ontologies was checked manually for the presented cases. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected in definitional proposal

full rationale

The paper proposes Generic DOL as an extension of DOL for defining and instantiating GODPs, with illustrations via the Role pattern and composition of larger patterns from smaller ones. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations appear in the provided text. Claims rest on definitional extension and tool implementation rather than any reduction to self-citations, ansatzes, or renamed known results. The work is self-contained as a language proposal without load-bearing circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that DOL admits a generic extension that preserves semantics and that the Heterogeneous Tool Set can implement instantiation without additional unstated machinery. No free parameters or invented entities with independent evidence are described.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption DOL language admits a generic parameterization extension that supports instantiation of classes, properties, individuals and ontologies.
    Invoked in the definition of GODPs and Generic DOL in the abstract.
  • domain assumption The Heterogeneous Tool Set can implement the Generic DOL extension for pattern instantiation and composition.
    Stated as the implementation vehicle without further justification in the abstract.
invented entities (2)
  • Generic DOL no independent evidence
    purpose: Extension of DOL to support generic ontology design patterns with parameters.
    New language construct introduced to enable the GODPs.
  • GODP no independent evidence
    purpose: Parameterized reusable ontology design pattern.
    Core new concept defined and illustrated in the paper.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5599 in / 1419 out tokens · 31096 ms · 2026-05-25T19:34:42.688947+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Astesiano, M

    E. Astesiano, M. Bidoit, B. Krieg-Brückner, H. Kirchner, P. D. Mosses, D. Sannella, and A. Tarlecki. CASL - the CommonAlgebraicSpecification Language.Theoretical Computer Science, 286:153–196, 2002

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Mosses, editors.CASL User Manual, volume 2900 ofLNCS

    Michel Bidoit and Peter D. Mosses, editors.CASL User Manual, volume 2900 ofLNCS. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    8th Workshop on Ontology Design Patterns - WOP 2017, 2017

    Eva Blomqvist, Oscar Corcho, Matthew Horridge, Rinke Hoekstra, and David Carral, editors. 8th Workshop on Ontology Design Patterns - WOP 2017, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Extensions of Generic DOL for Generic Ontology Design Patterns

    Mihai Codescu, Bernd Krieg-Brückner, and Till Mossakowski. Extensions of generic DOL for generic ontology design patterns.http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.06275

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1906

  5. [5]

    Ontology design patterns for semantic web content

    Aldo Gangemi. Ontology design patterns for semantic web content. In Yolanda Gil, Enrico Motta, V. Richard Benjamins, and Mark A. Musen, editors,ISWC 2005, volume 3729 of LNCS, pages 262–276. Springer, 2005

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Upper ontologies in COLORE

    Michael Gruninger, Carmen Chui, and Megan Katsumi. Upper ontologies in COLORE. In Proceedings of the Joint Ontology Workshops 2017 Episode 3: The Tyrolean Autumn of Ontology, Bozen-Bolzano, September 2017. CEUR-WS.http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2050/ FOUST_paper_2.pdf

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Ontology Engineering with Ontology Design Patterns - Foundations and Applications, volume 25 ofStudies on the Semantic Web

    Pascal Hitzler, Aldo Gangemi, Krzysztof Janowicz, Adila Krisnadhi, and Valentina Pre- sutti, editors. Ontology Engineering with Ontology Design Patterns - Foundations and Applications, volume 25 ofStudies on the Semantic Web. IOS Press, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Krisnadhi, and Valentina Presutti

    Pascal Hitzler, Aldo Gangemi, Krzysztof Janowicz, Adila A. Krisnadhi, and Valentina Presutti. Towards a simple but useful ontology design pattern representation language. In Blomqvist et al. [3]

    work page

  9. [9]

    Ichbiah, B

    J.D. Ichbiah, B. Krieg-Brückner, A. Wichmann, H.F. Ledgard, J.-C. Heliard, J.R. Abrial, J.P.G. Barnes, and O. Roubine. Preliminary Ada Reference Manual.ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 14(6 Part A), 1979

    work page 1979

  10. [10]

    Choosing ontologies for reuse.Applied Ontology, 12(3-4):195–221, 2017

    Megan Katsumi and Michael Grüninger. Choosing ontologies for reuse.Applied Ontology, 12(3-4):195–221, 2017

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    The metatheory of ontology reuse

    Megan Katsumi and Michael Grüninger. The metatheory of ontology reuse. Applied Ontology, 13(3):225–254, 2018

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Generic ontologies and generic ontology design patterns

    Bernd Krieg-Brückner and Till Mossakowski. Generic ontologies and generic ontology design patterns. In Blomqvist et al. [3]

    work page

  13. [13]

    The role patterns

    Adila Krisnadhi. The role patterns. In Hitzler et al. [7], pages 313–319

    work page

  14. [14]

    The Distributed Ontology, Modeling and Specification Language – DOL

    Till Mossakowski, Mihai Codescu, Fabian Neuhaus, and Oliver Kutz. The Distributed Ontology, Modeling and Specification Language – DOL. In A. Koslow and A. Buchsbaum, editors, The Road to Universal Logic, volume I, pages 489–520. Birkhäuser, 2015

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    The distributed ontology, modeling and specification language

    Till Mossakowski, Oliver Kutz, Mihai Codescu, and Christoph Lange. The distributed ontology, modeling and specification language. In C. Del Vescovo, T. Hahmann, D. Pearce, and D. Walther, editors,WoMo 2013, volume 1081 ofCEUR-WS online proceedings, 2013

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    The heterogeneous tool set, Hets

    Till Mossakowski, Christian Maeder, and Klaus Lüttich. The heterogeneous tool set, Hets. In Orna Grumberg and Michael Huth, editors,TACAS 2007, volume 4424 ofLNCS, pages 519–522. Springer, 2007

    work page 2007

  17. [17]

    Mosses, editor.CASL Reference Manual, volume 2960 ofLNCS

    Peter D. Mosses, editor.CASL Reference Manual, volume 2960 ofLNCS. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004

    work page 2004

  18. [18]

    The distributed ontology, modeling, and specification lan- guage (DOL), 2016

    Object Management Group. The distributed ontology, modeling, and specification lan- guage (DOL), 2016. OMG standard available atomg.org/spec/DOL. See alsodol-omg.org

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    Skjæveland, Henrik Forssell, Johan W

    Martin G. Skjæveland, Henrik Forssell, Johan W. Klüwer, Daniel Lupp, Evgenij Thorstensen, and Arild Waaler. Pattern-based ontology design and instantiation with reasonable ontology templates. In Blomqvist et al. [3]

    work page

  20. [20]

    Skjæveland, Daniel P

    Martin G. Skjæveland, Daniel P. Lupp, Leif Harald Karlsen, and Henrik Forssell. Prac- tical ontology pattern instantiation, discovery, and maintenance with reasonable ontology templates. In Denny Vrandecic et al., editors,ISWC 2018, volume 11136 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 477–494. Springer, 2018

    work page 2018