This paper addresses questions of universality related to ontological engineering, namely aims at substantiating (negative) answers to the following three basic questions: (i) Is there a ‘universal ontology’?, (ii) Is there a ‘universal formal ontology language’?, and (iii) Is there a universally applicable ‘mode of reasoning’ for formal ontologies? To support our answers in a principled way, we present a general framework for the design of formal ontologies resting on two main principles: firstly, we endorse Rudolf Carnap’s principle of logical (...) tolerance by giving central stage to the concept of logical heterogeneity, i.e. the use of a plurality of logical languages within one ontology design. Secondly, to structure and combine heterogeneous ontologies in a semantically well-founded way, we base our work on abstract model theory in the form of institutional semantics, as forcefully put forward by Joseph Goguen and Rod Burstall. In particular, we employ the structuring mechanisms of the heterogeneous algebraic specification language HetCasl for defining a general concept of heterogeneous, distributed, highly modular and structured ontologies, called hyperontologies. Moreover, we distinguish, on a structural and semantic level, several different kinds of combining and aligning heterogeneous ontologies, namely integration, connection, and refinement. We show how the notion of heterogeneous refinement can be used to provide both a general notion of sub-ontology as well as a notion of heterogeneous equivalence of ontologies, and finally sketch how different modes of reasoning over ontologies are related to these different structuring aspects. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to give a general background and a uniform treatment of several notions of mutual interpretability. Sentential calculi are treated as preorders and logical invariants of adjoint situations, i.e. Galois connections are investigated. The class of all sentential calculi is treated as a quasiordered class.Some methods of the axiomatization of the M-counterparts of modal systems are based on particular adjoints. Also, invariants concerning adjoints for calculi with implication are pointed out. Finally, the notion of interpretability (...) is generalized so that it may be applied to closure spaces as well. (shrink)

The aim of the paper is twofold. First, we want to recapture the genesis of the logics of order. The origin of this notion is traced back to the work of Jerzy Kotas, Roman Suszko, Richard Routley and Robert K. Meyer. A further development of the theory of logics of order is presented in the papers of Jacek K. Kabziński. Quite contemporarily, this notion gained in significance in the papers of Carles Noguera and Petr Cintula. Logics of order are named (...) there _logics of weak implications_. They play a crucial role in their monograph (Noguera and Cintula _Logic and Implication. An Introduction to the General Algebraic Study of Non-Classical Logics_, Trends in Logic 57, Springer, Berlin, 2021). But, more importantly, the other goal is to define some subclasses of the logics of order in reference to later results of Jacek K. Kabziński and Michael Dunn. The original conception of implication is due to Kabziński. Implication is a stronger notion than the notion of the connective of order aka weak implication. As a result, the three subclasses of logics of order are isolated: logics of implication, logics of symmetry, and tonoidal logics. These notions are uniformly defined and investigated from various viewpoints in terms of consequence operations. The emphasis is put on their semantics. (shrink)