Conceptual Modelling and The Quality of Ontologies: Endurantism Vs. Perdurantism

TL;DR

This paper compares endurantist and perdurantist modelling paradigms for ontology design, demonstrating that perdurantism can produce more expressive and temporal ontologies, impacting software development quality.

Contribution

It provides an analytical comparison between ORM-based endurantist and OP-based perdurantist ontology models, highlighting the advantages of perdurantism.

Findings

Perdurantist ontologies are more expressive.

Perdurantism enhances reusability and objectivity.

Perdurantist models better capture temporal aspects.

Abstract

Ontologies are key enablers for sharing precise and machine-understandable semantics among different applications and parties. Yet, for ontologies to meet these expectations, their quality must be of a good standard. The quality of an ontology is strongly based on the design method employed. This paper addresses the design problems related to the modelling of ontologies, with specific concentration on the issues related to the quality of the conceptualisations produced. The paper aims to demonstrate the impact of the modelling paradigm adopted on the quality of ontological models and, consequently, the potential impact that such a decision can have in relation to the development of software applications. To this aim, an ontology that is conceptualised based on the Object-Role Modelling (ORM) approach (a representative of endurantism) is re-engineered into a one modelled on the basis of the Object Paradigm (OP) (a representative of perdurantism). Next, the two ontologies are analytically compared using the specified criteria. The conducted comparison highlights that using the OP for ontology conceptualisation can provide more expressive, reusable, objective and temporal ontologies than those conceptualised on the basis of the ORM approach.