Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 50 references

ApplE: A Modular Ontology of Applied Ethics and Event Context for Ethical Decision Modeling

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes ApplE, a modular ontology that pairs applied ethics theory with event context, and shows a logical rule firing to classify a bioethics action as morally wrong.

desk verdict A competent modular ontology for applied ethics with a real public artifact, but the moral classification layer rests on hand-coded SWRL rules tested against one scenario, so the central claim overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05110 v2 pith:YNGU63YA submitted 2025-02-07 cs.CY cs.AI

Aisha Aijaz , Raghava Mutharaju , Manohar Kumar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords appliedethicsontologyethicaldecision-makingknowledgerepresentationSWRLruleseventcontextbioethicsFAIRprinciples
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes ApplE, a modular ontology that models applied ethics as two connected parts: a module for ethical theory (theories, principles, issues, philosophies) and a module for event context (agents, actions, consequences, intentions, time, place). The aim is to let a knowledge-based system take a structured description of an event and infer whether the central action is morally right, wrong, or grey. The authors demonstrate this on a bioethics case in which a doctor prescribes a large dose of an addictive opioid: a rule written in SWRL fires on the modeled facts and classifies the prescription as morally wrong because it violated the principle of nonmaleficence while producing a significant, bad, long-term consequence. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's claim to be that this two-module design, together with such rules, is a reusable resource for ethical AI and ontology-driven applications.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ApplE ontology itself: an OWL ontology built from two modules, the Applied Ethics module and the Event Context module, with bridge properties connecting them. The Applied Ethics module supplies the invariable theoretical vocabulary (Ethics, AppliedEthics, NormativeEthics, Consequentialism, Deontology, VirtueEthics, EthicalPrinciple, EthicalIssue, AppliedEthicsPhilosophy), while the Event Context module supplies the variable situational vocabulary (Context, Event, Agent with ActiveAgent and PassiveAgent, Action, Consequence with severity, utility, and duration, MoralIntention, Role, TimeEntity, Place). The classification mechanism is a set of SWRL rules, a Semantic Web rule language, that run over this vocabulary; for example, one rule states that an action which violates the principle of nonmaleficence and has a significant bad long-term consequence is morally wrong. The paper also reuses established ontology design patterns for participation, events, object roles, and trajectories as structural scaffolding.

What would settle it

Encode a second ethical case with a known, agreed verdict, such as a justified act of whistle-blowing that violates confidentiality but prevents serious harm, run the existing SWRL rules, and check the classification. If the reasoner labels the act morally wrong despite the agreed verdict, or if it fails to produce any classification, the claim that ApplE indicates moral rightness is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the morality of an action can be holistically described by linking philosophical theory to event context in one ontology. ApplE captures the theoretical side with a taxonomy of ethics, applied ethics, normative theories (consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics), ethical principles, and domain-specific applied-ethics philosophies; it captures the practical side with agents, actions, consequences characterized by severity, utility and duration, moral intentions, roles, time, and place. Bridge relationships such as 'an action violates or upholds an ethical principle' and 'an active agent has a moral intention' tie the two sides together. Given a modeled event, logical rules in SWRL classify the action as MorallyWrongAction, MorallyRightAction, or MorallyGreyAction; the bioethics exemplar shows the rule firing to label the doctor's prescription morally wrong despite the doctor's good intentions.

Load-bearing premise

The ontology's verdicts depend on the assumption that its hand-written SWRL rules correctly encode ethical judgment for any event described in the ontology; if the rule used in the bioethics example, that an action violating nonmaleficence with a significant bad long-term consequence is morally wrong, does not generalize to other cases, the ontology's ability to indicate moral rightness collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A system that populates the ontology with facts about an event can obtain a moral classification of the action along with an inspectable justification, since the firing SWRL rule names the principles violated and the consequence characteristics.
  • New application domains can be added by extending the Event Context module, leaving the ethics-theory vocabulary unchanged, which supports modular growth into business ethics, environmental ethics, and other fields.
  • The ontology supplies a shared vocabulary in which different ethical theories can coexist, so a machine can represent that a consequentialist and a deontologist may reach different verdicts on the same event rather than forcing one answer.
  • Because the ontology is published under an open license with a permanent URL, other systems can adopt it as a semantic backbone, making the classification of actions interoperable across applications.
  • The explicit rule set makes the ethical assumptions behind a machine's verdict auditable, which matters for transparency in AI decision-making.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The single demonstrated rule encodes a substantive ethical stance, so the framework as provided is better read as a way to encode ethical judgments consistently than as a source of the judgments themselves; generalizing to other domains will require adding more rules for other principles and theories.
  • One consequence the authors leave implicit is that the ontology's verdicts are only as determinate as the discretization of consequence characteristics: different users' assignments of 'significant' or 'long-term' can flip the outcome, so calibration across annotators would be needed before deployment.
  • A testable extension would be to encode an ethical dilemma with a known disagreement between theories, such as a case where consequentialism permits an action that deontology forbids, and check whether ApplE can represent both verdicts using different philosophy associations without the ontology becoming inconsistent.
  • The authors mention combining the ontology with learning algorithms; if that direction is pursued, the ontology's structured event descriptions could serve as training features for predicting verdicts, with the SWRL rules acting as a consistency check on what the model learns.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents ApplE, a modular OWL ontology that combines an Applied Ethics module (theories, principles, philosophies) with an Event Context module (agents, actions, consequences, intentions, time, place) to support ethical decision modeling. The development follows a modified SAMOD methodology with a domain expert, reuses ontology design patterns and established ontologies, and is evaluated through SAMOD's three-fold testing (model, data, query), HermiT consistency checking, OOPS pitfall scanning, and a semiotic metrics suite. A bioethics motivating scenario (opioid prescription) is modeled, and a SWRL rule classifies the action as morally wrong. The resource is positioned as FAIR, reusable, and intended for ethical AI systems.

Significance. If validated, ApplE would be a useful resource for representing ethical context and theory in a machine-readable way; the reuse of ontology design patterns, the FAIR publication practices, and the clear modular structure are strengths. The automated consistency checks (HermiT, OOPS) and the explicit competency-question testing are good ontology-engineering practice. However, the central claim that the ontology can indicate the moral nature of an action rests on hand-written SWRL rules evaluated on a single scenario, with no independent normative validation. The present evidence supports the ontology's representational expressivity, but not its reliability as a moral classifier or its generalizability across domains.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.1, Figure 5] The central claim that ApplE can 'holistically describe the morality of an action' rests on a single hand-written SWRL rule tested on one bioethics scenario. The rule's antecedent (violation of nonmaleficence plus significant bad long-term consequence) already encodes the normative conclusion, so the inferred MorallyWrongAction is a direct consequence of an author-selected premise rather than an independent finding. No second scenario, no conflicting-principles case, no held-out expert labels, and no comparison with an alternative ethical theory are presented. This validation gap is load-bearing because the paper's abstract and conclusion present moral classification as a contribution, not merely as an illustrative demonstration.
  2. [Section 6, Tables 3 and 4] The query testing retrieves exactly the instances that were asserted in the data exemplar (e.g., CQ7 returns OpioidUseDisorder and PainRelief; CQ8 returns BadConsequence, LongTermConsequence, SignificantConsequence). These queries demonstrate that the ontology is queryable and internally coherent, but they do not test whether the SWRL rules produce correct or generalizable normative classifications; the expected outcomes coincide with the inputs used to build the model. The paper should report a separate evaluation of the rule layer, for example precision/recall against expert judgments on unseen cases, or at minimum a second domain exemplar.
  3. [Section 6.1 and Section 7] The bioethics exemplar involves a conflict between beneficence (upheld) and nonmaleficence/responsibility (violated), yet the demonstrated rule resolves the case by triggering on one violated principle and one bad long-term consequence, with no mechanism for weighing conflicting principles or the agent's good intention. The paper's motivation emphasizes ethical dilemmas with conflicting courses of action, and Section 7 defers dilemma resolution to future work; however, the abstract's claim that the ontology 'holistically describes the morality of an action' is not supported by the presented inference layer. Either demonstrate conflict handling or soften the claim to representation of ethical context rather than determination of moral status.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1, axiom (6)] The axiom Consequentialism ⊓ Deontology ⊓ VirtueEthics ⊑ ⊥ only rules out membership in all three classes at once; if the three theories are intended to be mutually exclusive, pairwise disjointness axioms are needed.
  2. [Section 4.2, axiom (12)] Axiom (12) uses the class name EthicalPrinciples while the text and Table 2 refer to EthicalPrinciple; the naming should be made consistent.
  3. [Section 6.1, Figure 5] The SWRL rules are not enumerated in the paper; only one rule is displayed in the figure. The full rule set should be provided in SWRL syntax in an appendix or in a versioned, referenced file so that the inference layer can be independently reproduced.
  4. [Section 3] The claimed modification of SAMOD is not specified precisely; the only deviation described is involving the domain expert twice. The paper should list the concrete changes to SAMOD and justify them.
  5. [Section 6.2] The semiotic metrics evaluation is reported as a set of checklist assertions ('checkbox was ticked') without scores or a rubric; this weakens the post-development evaluation.
  6. [Section 5 and Section 7] The statement in Section 7 that the entity set is not exhaustive is welcome, but it sits uneasily with the abstract's 'holistically describes the morality of an action'; the wording of the claim should be calibrated to the demonstrated scope. The FAIR claim would also be strengthened by a version identifier or DOI for the ontology resource.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The SWRL 'morality indication' is hand-fitted to the single bioethics exemplar, so the demonstrated moral classification replays the scenario's own verdict.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.1, Motivation Scenario and Figure 5 caption]
    "Given that the good, short-term consequence was mild (relieving pain), but the bad, long-term consequence was significant (addiction to drugs), the doctor was at fault regardless of his good intentions. ... One of the SWRL rules is displayed to show that it found a match within the provided data and assigned PrescribeOpioidPainkiller as a Morally Wrong Action accordingly."

    The motivating scenario already supplies the verdict ('the doctor was at fault') and the features that trigger the rule (bad, long-term, significant consequence and violation of nonmaleficence/responsibility). The SWRL rule was authored by the same developers to fire on exactly those features and conclude MorallyWrongAction, after which the reasoner is run on the same exemplar data and 'found a match'. The output is therefore an encoding of the scenario's judgment, not an independent derivation from ethical theory. Table 3 further lists the outcomes as 'Expected Outcome' in advance, so the evaluation confirms that the model reproduces its own designed conclusions.

full rationale

The ontological engineering itself is largely self-contained: HermiT consistency checks, the OOPS pitfall scan, and the competency-question queries are standard internal quality measures and do not, by themselves, raise circularity concerns. There is no load-bearing self-citation; references to SAMOD, ODPs, and reasoners are external and appropriate. The circularity is localized to the SWRL moral-classification step. The paper's fifth contribution is 'SWRL rules to indicate the moral nature of an action', and the only demonstrated rule is effectively a formalization of the motivating scenario's own conclusion: the scenario says the doctor is at fault because of a significant bad long-term consequence and violated principles, and the rule assigns MorallyWrongAction when those same asserted features are present. Running the reasoner on the same exemplar and reporting that it 'found a match' is thus not an independent test of the rule's ethical content. Section 7 also concedes the entity set is not exhaustive. The score of 6 reflects that one central promised capability—indicating an action's moral status—reduces, in the presented evidence, to a rule crafted to match the expected answer, while the broader taxonomy and modular ontology retain independent substance.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The ontology rests on asserted domain assumptions about which ethical theories matter and how moral status is determined. The SWRL rules are modeler choices rather than derived facts, and the single use case is not enough to establish the ontology's generality.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Consequentialism, Deontology, and VirtueEthics are the three underlying normative theories, and they are mutually disjoint.
    Equation 6 asserts Consequentialism ⊓ Deontology ⊓ VirtueEthics ⊑ ⊥, excluding hybrid or other frameworks. This limits expressiveness and may not cover all ethical positions.
  • domain assumption An action's moral status depends on which ethical principles it upholds or violates, the agent's moral intention, and the features of its consequences.
    This is the core modeling choice in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, asserted without empirical or philosophical justification. It determines what data the ontology expects.
  • ad hoc to paper The bioethics motivating scenario is representative of the ontology's applicability to any domain.
    Only a single motivating scenario is modeled; the claim of generality is asserted in the conclusion without cross-domain evaluation.
invented entities (4)
  • MorallyGreyAction
    purpose: To classify actions that both uphold and violate ethical principles.
    Introduced by the authors; no external validation of what makes an action 'grey' or how to consistently assign this label.
  • MoralIntention
    purpose: To represent the agent's intention as an indicator of virtue.
    New class in the Applied Ethics module; no empirical basis given for how intention is assessed or linked to virtue.
  • AppliedEthicsPhilosophy
    purpose: To represent theories applied to specific real-world domains.
    A central class of the taxonomy designed with the domain expert; without external use, its necessity and completeness are unproven.
  • SeverityOfConsequence
    purpose: To characterize consequences as mild, moderate, or severe.
    The thresholds for severity are left undefined; the paper says these can be 'discretized' when needed but no objective method is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ApplE: A Modular Ontology of Applied Ethics and Event Context for Ethical Decision Modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YNGU63YA

@misc{pith2026250205110,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ApplE: A Modular Ontology of Applied Ethics and Event Context for Ethical Decision Modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YNGU63YA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05110}
}
read the original abstract

Applied ethics applies ethical decision-making to domain-specific contexts using contextual information such as agents, actions, temporal and spatial settings, and theoretical constructs such as utility, virtues, rights, and duties. However, representing an ethical decision is challenging as it may be abstract, context-sensitive, and semantically heterogeneous. Nevertheless, important ethical and contextual factors can be formally modeled to support structured ethical reasoning. Knowledge representation and reasoning provide a mechanism to translate abstract ethical concepts into machine-interpretable conceptual structures in the context of an event. To achieve this, we propose ApplE, an Applied Ethics ontology that models ethical theory and event context within a unified and modular conceptual framework for ethical decision-making. The ontology was developed using a modified version of the Simplified Agile Methodology for Ontology Development (SAMOD), which facilitates iterative refinement of classes and relationships, as well as the participation of a domain expert. The modular development of ApplE combines Ethics Theory with Event Context to capture semantic relationships between ethical principles, agents, actions, consequences, intentions, and domains. Using ApplE, we modeled a use case from the medical domain to demonstrate the ontology's representational expressivity and reasoning capabilities. In addition to ontological reasoning and consistency checks, ApplE is also evaluated using the three-fold testing process of SAMOD. ApplE follows the FAIR principles and is positioned to be used as a reusable semantic and conceptual modeling resource for ethical AI systems and ontology-driven applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05110 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A representation of the hybrid methodology inspired by the Spiral methodology at a macro-level and the SAMOD methodology at a micro-level. the practical factors, we considered the context of an event (colored green in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An intermediate representation of the ApplE ontology with the two interacting modules. These models have been expanded in the following sections. Competency Questions. Competency questions have been used during the development of the ontology and for its evaluation. They help to discern the information expected from the ontology. As per SAMOD, these competency questions have been appropriately identified and marked.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An intermediate diagram that shows the applied ethics module of the Applied Ethics ontology. Some instances and classes have been omitted from this diagram for the sake of brevity. 4.2 Event Context Module In this module, the ontology captures the important information about the Context in which an Event has occurred. The Event has various contextual information, such as Domain, TimeEntity, Place, and the Agent invo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An intermediate diagram that shows the event context module of the Applied Ethics ontology. Some instances and classes have been omitted from this diagram for brevity. A few axioms from the Event Context Module are as follows. Context ⊑ ∃describesEvent.Event (7) Action…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A detailed diagram to show how the data exemplar is modeled using the on￾tology for the Bioethics domain. A similar modeling may be done for any other event of another domain. One of the SWRL rules is displayed to show that it found a match within the provided data and…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: 2022 Ninth International Conference on Social Networks Analysis, Management and Security (SNAMS)

    Abdullah, M., Madain, A., Jararweh, Y.: Chatgpt: Fundamentals, applications and social impacts. In: 2022 Ninth International Conference on Social Networks Analysis, Management and Security (SNAMS). pp. 1–8. Ieee (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Pala- dyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 9(1), 337–357 (2018)

    Anderson, M., Anderson, S.L.: Geneth: A general ethical dilemma analyzer. Pala- dyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 9(1), 337–357 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Bioethics 25(3), 119–127 (2011)

    Archard, D.: Why moral philosophers are not and should not be moral experts. Bioethics 25(3), 119–127 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Nature 563(7729), 59–64 (2018)

    Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.F., Rahwan, I.: The moral machine experiment. Nature 563(7729), 59–64 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Philosophy and Medicine 78, 55–74 (2004)

    Beauchamp, T.L., DeGrazia, D.: Principles and principlism. Philosophy and Medicine 78, 55–74 (2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    Bergmann, M., Kain, P.: Challenges to moral and religious belief: Disagreement and evolution (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Com- puter 21(5), 61–72 (1988)

    Boehm, B.W.: A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Com- puter 21(5), 61–72 (1988)

    work page 1988

  8. [8]

    In: Discovery Science: 23rd International Conference, DS 2020, Thessaloniki, Greece, October 19–21, 2020, Proceedings 23

    Briggs, E., Hollm´ en, J.: Mitigating discrimination in clinical machine learning de- cision support using algorithmic processing techniques. In: Discovery Science: 23rd International Conference, DS 2020, Thessaloniki, Greece, October 19–21, 2020, Proceedings 23. pp. 19–33. Springer (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Bro˙ zek, B., Janik, B.: Can artificial intelligences be moral agents? New ideas in psychology 54, 101–106 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Data & Knowledge Engineering 55(1), 84–102 (2005)

    Burton-Jones, A., Storey, V.C., Sugumaran, V., Ahluwalia, P.: A semiotic metrics suite for assessing the quality of ontologies. Data & Knowledge Engineering 55(1), 84–102 (2005)

    2005

  3. [11]

    Cohen, A.I., Wellman, C.H.: Contemporary debates in applied ethics (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5, 6 (2018)

    Cominelli, L., Mazzei, D., De Rossi, D.E.: Seai: Social emotional artificial intel- ligence based on damasio’s theory of mind. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5, 6 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Procedia Computer Science 137, 242–248 (2018)

    DeBellis, M.: A universal moral grammar (umg) ontology. Procedia Computer Science 137, 242–248 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    In: AAAI

    Dehghani, M., Tomai, E., Forbus, K.D., Klenk, M.: An integrated reasoning ap- proach to moral decision-making. In: AAAI. pp. 1280–1286 (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    Journal of applied philosophy 14(3), 289–300 (1997)

    DeMarco, J.P.: Coherence and applied ethics. Journal of applied philosophy 14(3), 289–300 (1997)

    1997

  8. [16]

    Journal of Philosophical Research (2020)

    Fink, C.K.: Acting with good intentions: virtue ethics and the principle that ought implies can. Journal of Philosophical Research (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    In: Zalta, E.N., Nodelman, U

    Flynn, J.: Theory and Bioethics. In: Zalta, E.N., Nodelman, U. (eds.) The Stan- ford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Winter 2022 edn. (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Frey, R.G., Wellman, C.H.: A companion to applied ethics (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    In: Handbook on ontologies, pp

    Gangemi, A., Presutti, V.: Ontology design patterns. In: Handbook on ontologies, pp. 221–243. Springer (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    Journal of automated reasoning 53, 245–269 (2014)

    Glimm, B., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Stoilos, G., Wang, Z.: Hermit: an owl 2 reasoner. Journal of automated reasoning 53, 245–269 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Glimm, B., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Stoilos, G., Wang, Z.: Hermit: An owl 2 reasoner. J. Autom. Reason. 53(3), 245–269 (oct 2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-014-9305-1, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10817-014-9305-1 ApplE: An Applied Ethics Ontology with Event Context 17

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    Handbook on ontologies pp

    Guarino, N., Welty, C.A.: An overview of ontoclean. Handbook on ontologies pp. 201–220 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    The Blackwell guide to ethical theory pp

    Hill Jr, T.E.: Kantianism. The Blackwell guide to ethical theory pp. 311–331 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Holmes, R.L.: Introduction to applied ethics (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    W3C Member Submission (5 2004)

    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: Swrl: A semantic web rule language combining owl and ruleml. W3C Member Submission (5 2004)

    2004

  18. [26]

    Obstetrical & Gyneco- logical Survey 74(5), 278–279 (2019)

    Jones, G.H., Bruera, E., Abdi, S., Kantarjian, H.M.: The opioid epidemic in the united states—overview, origins, and potential solutions. Obstetrical & Gyneco- logical Survey 74(5), 278–279 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Philosophical perspectives 6, 223–242 (1992)

    Kagan, S.: The structure of normative ethics. Philosophical perspectives 6, 223–242 (1992)

    1992

  20. [28]

    University of Cape Town (2018)

    Keet, C.M.: An introduction to ontology engineering. University of Cape Town (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Applied Ontology 3(1-2), 91–110 (2008)

    Keet, C.M., Artale, A.: Representing and reasoning over a taxonomy of part–whole relations. Applied Ontology 3(1-2), 91–110 (2008)

    2008

  22. [30]

    Open Access Peer-reviewed Chapter in Factoring Ethics in Technology, Policy Making, Regula- tion and AI (2021), https://www.iso.org/committee/6794475.html

    Lewis, D., Filip, D.: An ontology for standardising trustworthy ai. Open Access Peer-reviewed Chapter in Factoring Ethics in Technology, Policy Making, Regula- tion and AI (2021), https://www.iso.org/committee/6794475.html

    2021

  23. [31]

    Simon and Schuster (2022)

    Liautaud, S., Sweetingham, L.: The power of ethics: How to make good choices in a complicated world. Simon and Schuster (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11, 143–152 (4 2007)

    Mikhail, J.: Universal moral grammar: theory, evidence and the future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11, 143–152 (4 2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.007

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    The Review of Politics 85(1), 73–97 (2023)

    Mokrosinska, D.: Necessary but illegitimate: On democracy’s secrets. The Review of Politics 85(1), 73–97 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    AI Matters 1(4), 4–12 (2015)

    Musen, M.A.: The prot´ eg´ e project: a look back and a look forward. AI Matters 1(4), 4–12 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2757001.2757003, https://doi.org/ 10.1145/2757001.2757003

    2015

  27. [35]

    Evaluation and program planning 13(3), 275–283 (1990)

    Nagel, S.S.: Bridging theory and practice in policy/program evaluation. Evaluation and program planning 13(3), 275–283 (1990)

    1990

  28. [36]

    Philosophers’ Imprint (2015)

    Nye, H., Plunkett, D., Ku, J.: Non-consequentialism demystified. Philosophers’ Imprint (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Journal of Law and the Biosciences 9(1), lsac012 (04 2022)

    Papalexopoulos, T.P., Bertsimas, D., Cohen, I.G., Goff, R.R., Stewart, D.E., Trichakis, N.: Ethics-by-design: efficient, fair and inclusive resource allocation us- ing machine learning. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 9(1), lsac012 (04 2022). https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsa...

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    In: Proceedings of the 13th OWL: Experiences and Directions Workshop and 5th OWL reasoner evaluation workshop (OWLED-ORE 2016)

    Peroni, S.: Samod: an agile methodology for the development of ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 13th OWL: Experiences and Directions Workshop and 5th OWL reasoner evaluation workshop (OWLED-ORE 2016). pp. 1–14 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Man- agement

    Peroni, S., Shotton, D., Vitali, F.: The live owl documentation environment: a tool for the automatic generation of ontology documentation. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Man- agement. p. 398–412. EKA W’12, Springer-...

    2012

  32. [40]

    International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS) 10(2), 7–34 (2014)

    Poveda-Villal´ on, M., G´ omez-P´ erez, A., Su´ arez-Figueroa, M.C.: Oops!(ontology pit- fall scanner!): An on-line tool for ontology evaluation. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS) 10(2), 7–34 (2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    Journal of Applied Psychology 91(1), 233 (2006) 18 Aijaz et al

    Reynolds, S.J.: Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: investigating the role of individual differences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(1), 233 (2006) 18 Aijaz et al

    2006

  34. [42]

    Judgment and De- cision making 6(7), 593–601 (2011)

    Shallow, C., Iliev, R., Medin, D.: Trolley problems in context. Judgment and De- cision making 6(7), 593–601 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    JAMA network open 3(1), e1918911–e1918911 (2020)

    Sheetz, K.H., Claflin, J., Dimick, J.B.: Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA network open 3(1), e1918911–e1918911 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Journal of Web Semantics 5(2), 51– 53 (2007)

    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pel- let: A practical owl-dl reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics 5(2), 51– 53 (2007). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2007.03.004, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570826807000169, s...

    2007 doi

  37. [45]

    Nature reviews Disease primers 6(1), 3 (2020)

    Strang, J., Volkow, N.D., Degenhardt, L., Hickman, M., Johnson, K., Koob, G.F., Marshall, B.D., Tyndall, M., Walsh, S.L.: Opioid use disorder. Nature reviews Disease primers 6(1), 3 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02931 (2016)

    Vanderelst, D., Winfield, A.: An architecture for ethical robots. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02931 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    EKA W’22: Companion Proceedings of the 23rd Interna- tional Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (2022), https://protect.oeg.fi.upm.es/eaontology/eaontol-

    V´ azquez-Flores, K.L., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Poveda-Villal´ on, M.: Ea-ontology: Eth- ical assessment ontology. EKA W’22: Companion Proceedings of the 23rd Interna- tional Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (2022), https://protect.oeg.fi.upm.es/eaonto...

    2022

  40. [48]

    Scien- tific data 3(1), 1–9 (2016)

    Wilkinson, M.D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I.J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.W., da Silva Santos, L.B., Bourne, P.E., et al.: The fair guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scien- tific data 3(1), 1–9 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    Connecting Virtues: Advances in Ethics, Epis- temology, and Political Philosophy pp

    Wilson, A.T.: Honesty as a virtue. Connecting Virtues: Advances in Ethics, Epis- temology, and Political Philosophy pp. 67–84 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    In: International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications

    Wilson, R., Goonetillake, J.S., Indika, W., Ginige, A.: Analysis of ontology quality dimensions, criteria and metrics. In: International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications. pp. 320–337. Springer (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.