Ontology of Offers According to Ingarden’s Theory of Individual Objects

Jan Andreasik

Zamo

c University of Management and Administration, Zamo

c, Poland

Keywords:

Ontology, Theory of Individual Objects, OWL.

Abstract:

In the paper, ontology of individual object and interpretation of it in the area of offers of goods and services is

presented and reconstructed by the author. Ontology is deﬁned on the basis of the Roman Ingarden’s formal

ontology, especially, on the basis of theory of individual object.

1 INTRODUCTION

Problems of offer selection become a daily ritual of

everyone who needs to acquire precise goods or ser-

vices. Due to the Internet, there is increasingly wider

access to catalogs, data bases and other resources pre-

senting goods. However, in decision support systems

concerning offer selection, an important issue is con-

ceptualization of an offer object from the point of

view of the purchaser. The purchaser usually is not

oriented in technical details of the offer. Technical

properties of an offered good by a producer are ex-

pressed in the one language (LP) and utility proper-

ties of the object, in which the purchaser is interested

in, are expressed in the other language (LB). Hence,

there is a problem to express a conceptual object of

the offer in order to have a relationship between de-

scriptions of the object in both languages. The LP

language is a language of matter (content) whereas

the LB language is a language of form of the object.

A model of such a matter-form system can be deﬁned

on the basis of the Roman Ingarden’s formal ontol-

ogy, especially, on the basis of theory of individual

object (Ingarden, 1987). In this paper, there will be

presented and reconstructed, by the author, the ontol-

ogy of individual object (OIO). The state of art for

decision support systems of tender processes has been

presented by J.Vanwelkenhuysen (Vanwelkenhuysen,

1998), R.Mohemad, A.Hamdan, Z. Ali Othman, N.M.

Mohamad Noor (Mohemad et al., 2010), T. Du (Du,

2009). A. Kayed, R.M. Colomb (Kayed and Colomb,

2002) showed a process of creation of ontology of

offers on the basis of offer descriptions published in

e-catalogs. A model of ontology of offers is a con-

ceptual structure TCS of an offer based of J. Sowa’s

conceptual graphs (M.Chein and Mugnier, 2009).

2 ONTOLOGY OF INDIVIDUAL

OBJECT

Roman Ingarden, in collation of formally ontological

results, showed a series of theorems concerning indi-

vidual. A part of them, which is used in construction

of ontology of individual object in the OWL language,

has the form: 30. Each individual object is, in view of

a formal subject of properties, directly determined by

a constitutive nature. 31. In each individual object,

there can be distinguished form, matter, and mode of

existence. 37. In each individual object, there is a

multitude of properties, but only one of them is con-

stitutive.

In this paper, the author analyzes a deﬁnition of

an individual object according to Roman Ingarden’s

formal ontology at three levels of synthesis of infor-

mation about the object. Level I corresponds to the

matter-form-mode of existence system. Level II dis-

tinguishes concepts deﬁning respectively: matter: a

constitutive nature, a material endowment of proper-

ties, form: a subject of properties: a positive state

and a negative state: mode of existence: types of

mode of existence (Rosiak, 2003), existential moment

(Mordka, 2002). Level III deﬁnes concepts of the

two-subject relation, which is a deﬁnition of a rela-

tional property. Figure 1 shows concepts of the OIO

ontology at three levels of synthesis of information

about the object.

Matter. What is qualitative in the widest meaning

of this word (Ingarden, 1987). Ingarden treats matter

interchangeably with content.

Form. What is radically not qualitative, but in which

”stands” what is qualitative in the widest meaning

of this word (Ingarden, 1987). J. Hartman (Hart-

man, 1993) shows difﬁculties in isolation the form.

429

Andreasik J..

Ontology of Offers According to Ingarden’s Theory of Individual Objects.

DOI: 10.5220/0004209304290432

In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Agents and Artiﬁcial Intelligence (ICAART-2013), pages 429-432

ISBN: 978-989-8565-39-6

 2013 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

Figure 1: A diagram of concepts of individual objects.

He presents an example of volume of some mass of

wood, which cannot be isolated directly from this

mass. Form is some abstract view of matter.

Mode of Existence. An object is determined by In-

garden as tree-unity of three moments: from, mat-

ters and mode of existence. The analysis of issues

concerning mode of existence has been made by M.

Rosiak (Rosiak, 2003). He presents, following Ingar-

den, the terms of main existential moments: X is ex-

istentially autonomous: X is immanently qualiﬁed

in itself. X is existentially heteronomous: X is not

existentially autonomous. X is existentially original:

X has the effective condition of existence itself. X

is existentially derivative: X can exist only as pro-

duced by some other being. X is existentially separa-

ble: X can exist as a separate unit. X is existentially

independent: X is existentially separable and does

not have to coexist with another existentially separate

being. X is existentially dependent: X is existen-

tially separable but not independent. X is existen-

tially inseparable: X is not existentially separable.

M.Rosiak, in his analysis of mode of existence, dis-

tinguishes eight combinations of existence moments,

which constitute the so-called mode of existence ac-

cording to R. Ingarden’s ontology.

Figure 2: Types of mode of existence (Rosiak, 2003).

Recognizing a Real Object. R.Ingarden proposes

recognizing the object by means of conducting an ex-

periment consisting in inﬂuence an object on other

objects. ”For the time being it is enough to show

that properties, especially essence of the individual

object can be best cognitively revealed if the recogniz-

ing subject inserts into the examined object into real

relations and relationships with other objects, if ex-

poses it - where it is possible - for their action and

caught it on how it behaves and what properties man-

ifests. This is the true meaning of experimenting with

real objects” (Ingarden, 1987). A static way of at-

tributing properties to the object is replaced by a dy-

namic deﬁnition of relation, which reﬂects a property

of the object identiﬁed in relation with other objects.

A Model of the Object. R.Ingarden treats globally

the object, without deﬁning its structure. However,

taking a way of deﬁning a property into considera-

tion, he says abstractly on the interior and surface of

the object. He considers the object as a geometrical

sphere. The surface of the object is considered in a

multi-layer and multi-side way in connection with at-

tributing individual properties to the object.

A Subject of Properties (Object Representation).

R.Ingarden, in his conception of individual object, at-

tributes to the subject a role of direct representation

of the object determined by properties. The subject of

properties constitutes the form of the object.

A Subject of Properties (a Reference Point of Prop-

erties). R.Ingarden attributes to the subject not only

a function of representation of the object, but also a

function of the base for a bundle of properties deter-

mining the object. Semantics of a reference point en-

forces a special role of possession an absolute refer-

ence system for properties.

A Subject of Properties (Moment of the Form of

an Independent Individual Object). R.Ingarden de-

ﬁnes the form of an individual object as a pair of mo-

ments: a subject of properties and properties. He

strongly stresses a mutual relationship of both mo-

ments.

Property (Aristotle’s Form of an Individual Ob-

ject). According to R.Ingarden, existence of an object

is conditioned by existence of properties attributing to

it. ”There is no property without an object, which

is owned by it, but also there is no object without

properties attributed to it” (Ingarden, 1987). Prop-

erties are strictly connected to the subject of proper-

ties. ”While the form of ”the subject of properties”

(features) in concrete demands always a multitude of

forms of properties, and indirectly properties, with

which constitutes one whole” (Ingarden, 1987).

A State of Thing. A state of thing is deﬁned as an

opinion about the object. A state of thing is an effect

of a process attributing properties to the object by ”a

subject of action”. R.Ingarden deﬁnes a subject as a

ICAART2013-InternationalConferenceonAgentsandArtificialIntelligence

430

system of states of things. ”Each object is a set (if

that word here is allowed to use) of states of things

associated with each other by one subject of proper-

ties, ...” (Ingarden, 1987).

Positive and Negative States of Things. R.Ingarden

allows possibility of appearing of states both positive

and negative. For example, a positive state is deter-

mined by the sentence: ”a given pen is gold” and a

negative state: ”a pen is not steel”.

Relation (Multi-subject State of Thing).

R.Ingarden formulated a structure of bisubject

relation in order to determine relative properties of

the object. This structure includes: c.A - carrier

A, c.B - carrier B, r.l. - relation link, m - matter,

f - form, l.r.e. - left relation exponent r.r.e. - right

relation exponent, f.r. - fundamentum relationis, r.t.A

- relation term A, r.t.B - relation term B.

Relation Term - a role of object A or B in determin-

ing ”relational constitutive nature”. ... an individual

object is not taken in its constitutive nature, which

builds it for itself, but only as a term of a certain rela-

tions with respect to another object (also as a term of

taken relation), and as a term materially determined

by a core of this relation” (Ingarden, 1987).

Fundamentum relationis. ”... fundamentum is the

constitutive nature or those and only those proper-

ties of objects used as the basis for an ontic relation

(link carriers), which mark moment of material links

(”core”) of relation” (Ingarden, 1987). A relation ex-

ponent constitutes a relative property.

Figure 3: A biterm relation scheme (Ingarden, 1987).

Types of Properties. R.Ingarden distinguishes four

types of properties: (1) relative properties, (2) exter-

nally conditioned properties, (3) acquired properties,

(4) absolutely own properties of an individual object.

Relative Properties constitute exponents of relation

R intervening objects P and P’. They have some ma-

terial endowment coming from endowment of funda-

mentum relationis.

Externally Conditioned Properties come from an

inﬂuence of other objects.

Acquired Properties constitute properties induced

by some external factor whose inﬂuence is ﬁnished.

”Properties acquired differ from the previously dis-

cussed properties that however they are also exter-

nally conditioned, this conditioning concerns only the

creation of properties with determined matters, but it

is not required to maintain these properties. Once

given the shape of a marble remains, however, activi-

ties that caused it have been stopped. Moreover, even

they had to stop, if a given shape had to be made; fur-

ther actions of the sculptor would have to change it

into another” (Ingarden, 1987).

Absolutely Own Properties are properties which are

not conditioned by any external factors in creation and

service of the object.

Constitutive Nature of an Individual Object - mat-

ter (content) determining globally the object. ”In

other words, the constitutive nature of the individual

object may be only such matter, which can fully deter-

mine a given subject of properties” (Ingarden, 1987).

More detailed deﬁnitions of concepts of ontology

of individual object are included in (Mordka, 2002;

Hartman, 1993; Nowak and Sosnowski, 2001).

3 ONTOLOGY OF OFFERS

OF GOODS AND SERVICES

OOGS)

Traditional properties of goods or services such as

price, technical parameters, usage parameters, con-

struction parameters, service parameters, a list of ad-

ditional equipment or additional services cannot con-

stitute exclusive characteristic of goods or services.

Ontology of offers of goods and services, presented

below, refers to the concept apparatus of the Roman

Ingarden’s ontology of individual object OIO. An of-

fer of good/service is deﬁned analogously by pur-

chaser value, purchaser utility, and after-sales service.

Purchaser value (constitutive nature) - is such a mate-

rial characteristic of a product that expresses in mon-

etary units a value of a good or a service for the pur-

chaser with respect to product novelty, its brand, and

a level of consumer acceptation. Example: In assess-

ment of a university educational offer, a value for a

graduate is a market value of a diploma, i.e., a pre-

dicted salary level. Hence, there should be provided,

in an educational offer, a predicted salary for a grad-

uate of a given university instead of, for example, a

fee for the whole period of studies. Purchaser utility

(subject) - is a subject of a list of properties, which

characterize purchaser expectation. Example: Utility

for a graduate of the university is presented in Univer-

sity System Asserting Education Quality (USAEQ)

including effects of education according to Recogni-

tion of Professional Qualiﬁcations for a given studies.

Utility potential (positive state) - constitutes a list of

utility properties related to advantages of an offer in

OntologyofOffersAccordingtoIngarden'sTheoryofIndividualObjects

431

relation to the line standard. Example: For the civil

engineering studies, Polish Chamber of Civil Engi-

neers deﬁnes proceedings of the recognition of pro-

fessional qualiﬁcations in the building industry. The

university system of education effects is referred to

this standard. Assessment can be made using the AHP

method (Saaty, 1980). Grades exceeding standard re-

quirements are respected. For example, the student

has the high knowledge level in the area of construc-

tion projects. This property constitutes also relative

assessment of USAEQ in relation to the standard.

Utility gap (negative state) - constitutes a list of util-

ity properties related to disadvantages of an offer in

relation to the line standard. Example: Grades below

standard requirements are respected. For example, the

student has the low knowledge level in the area of

construction projects. This property constitutes also

relative assessment of USAEQ because it does not

satisfy the standard in a given range. Utility prop-

erty (relational property) - is a property attributed to

given utility potential or utility gap. Example: There

are the following properties in USAEQ: student has

the (low, medium, high) knowledge level (in a given

range), student has the (low, medium, high) practi-

cal skills (in a given range), student has formed social

skills (in a given range). Advantage indicator (object

carrier) - is a measure of a given (positive) property

deﬁned as a result of the control procedure. Exam-

ple: In USAEQ, a measure can be as follows: student

has practical skills in the area of the project manage-

ment, student takes a part in implementation of con-

struction projects in national and foreign enterprises

during the planned placements organized for individ-

ual studies. Disadvantage indicator (object carrier) -

is a measure of a given (negative) property deﬁned as

a result of the control procedure. Example: In US-

AEQ, a measure can be as follows: student does not

have social skills in the area of the team management,

a measure can be a number of team projects realized

during studies in relation to required standard. An in-

dicator value (relative assessment) (relation exponent)

(advantages, disadvantages) - is a value of linguistic

variable (low, medium, high, good, very good). A re-

source base (fundamentum relationis) constitutes the

so-called material endowment of properties, they are

resources (system, human, document) authenticating

a given utility property. Example: A utility property:

student has the high knowledge in the area of calcula-

tions of steel constructions. A resource base to justify

this property constitutes: planned projects related to

calculations of steel constructions, a number of tools

for calculations (the FEM method) in the university

CAD laboratory, a number of teaching experienced

staff, a number of student’s own work hours on calcu-

lation projects, realized calculation projects for enter-

prises during the placements.

4 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, the formal ontology of individual ob-

ject of the Polish philosopher Roman Ingarden, re-

constructed by the author, has been presented. This

ontology includes a material and formal view of the

object. A key element of this ontology is the con-

cept apparatus of biobject relation, which constitutes

a procedure of attributing properties to the object. The

author showed original ontology of offers of goods

and services OOGS related to the concept apparatus

of ontology of individual object. In deﬁnitions of in-

dividual concepts, there have been presented exam-

ples from ontology of University System Asserting

Education Quality of Zamo

c University of Manage-

ment and Administration.

REFERENCES

Du, T. (2009). Building an automatic e-tendering system on

the Semantic Web. Decision Support Systems, 47:13–

21.

Hartman, J. (1993). Spos

ob istnienia rzeczy material-

nej według Sporu o istnienie

swiata Romana Ingar-

dena (in Polish). Maria Curie-Sklodowska University,

Lublin.

Ingarden, R. (1987). Sp

or o istnienie

swiata (in Polish).

PWN, Warsaw.

Kayed, A. and Colomb, R. (2002). Extracting ontological

concepts for tendering conceptual structures. Data &

Knowledge Engineering, 40:71–89.

M.Chein and Mugnier, M. (2009). Graph-based knowledge

representation. Springer-Verlag, London.

Mohemad, R. et al. (2010). Decision support systems

(DSS) in construction tendering processes. Interna-

tional Journal of Computer Science Issues, 7:35–45.

Mordka, A. (2002). Przedmiot i spos

ob istnienia (in Polish).

Univeristy of Rzeszow.

Nowak, A. and Sosnowski, L. (2001). Słownik poje¸

c ﬁlo-

zoﬁcznych Romana Ingardena (in Polish). Universitas,

Krakow.

Rosiak, M. (2003). Sp

or o substancjalizm (in Polish). Uni-

versity of Lodz.

Saaty, T. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-

Hill, New York.

Vanwelkenhuysen, J. (1998). The tender suport system.

Knowledge-Based Systems, 11:363–372.

ICAART2013-InternationalConferenceonAgentsandArtificialIntelligence

432