Object

Local identifier: xwkont:concept:object Slug: object Editorial status: reviewed Created: 2026-07-01 Modified: 2026-07-02

Scope Note

This crosswalk compares BFO's Object (a subtype of Material Entity, itself under Independent Continuant), DOLCE's Physical Object (a subtype of Physical Endurant), UFO's Substantial/Kind (an independent endurant further typed by sortals), and SUMO's Object (a subtype of Physical). It builds directly on docs/crosswalks/concepts/continuant-occurrent.md: Object sits on the continuant/endurant side of each source ontology's top-level split.

Correction (2026-07-01), following direct primary-source verification: this crosswalk originally claimed "UFO does not have a class literally named 'Object.'" That claim was wrong and has been corrected after fetching and manually extracting text from UFO's actual 2021 Applied Ontology paper. UFO's primary source states: "Objects (aka functional complexes) are entities whose parts play differentiated functional roles with respect to the whole, e.g., a human body, an organization, a computer, John's car." Object is a genuine, formal leaf category of Substantial, alongside Quantity (homeomerous amounts of matter) and Collective (parts playing the same role, e.g. a forest of trees). The earlier "Substantial/Kind vs. Object" framing conflated two different UFO distinctions: Substantial/Moment is the independent/dependent-endurant split (where Object lives on the Substantial side, alongside Quantity and Collective), while Kind is a sortal classification that can apply to any of these leaf categories (an ObjectKind, QuantityKind, etc. are explicitly paired types in UFO's own formal apparatus). See Source Definitions and Uncertainty for the corrected picture.

Exclusions: this crosswalk does not cover Quality, Role, or Relation (separate concepts in data/ontology/core.ttl), and does not attempt to resolve individuation-criteria debates (e.g., what exactly grounds an object's persistence conditions) in full philosophical depth — see Uncertainty.

Update (2026-07-02), GFO/YAMATO/TUpper/GUM buildout: per the pattern continuant-occurrent.md established, this crosswalk now also covers the four ADR-0015 sources, reusing the OWL/CLIF/technical-report artifacts already fetched for that crosswalk. GFO's Object-equivalent is Material_object (a subclass of Discrete_presential, itself under Presential) — GFO's Material_persistant class explicitly glosses this lineage as "related to those entities which are called sometimes continuants or objects, as apples, cars or houses," a rare case of a source ontology using XwkOnt's own vocabulary in its own definition text. YAMATO's Object is defined relationally, as "the interface between its internal and external processes" (quoting Galton 2009's "the water falls, but the waterfall doesn't fall" framing) rather than by an intrinsic unity criterion like BFO/DOLCE. TUpper's object (already fetched for continuant-occurrent.md) is reused unchanged — same negative-definition term, same low-confidence structural-analog treatment as SUMO. GUM's Object-equivalent is DecomposableObject/NonDecomposableObject, both direct subclasses of SimpleThing — a linguistic (parts-mentioned-in-discourse) criterion, not a metaphysical one.

Epistemic note: BFO and SUMO content is verified directly against primary sources (bfo-core.ttl, Merge.kif). UFO content is now also directly verified (2026-07-01) via manual PDF-stream extraction of the actual 2021 Applied Ontology paper — no PDF-text-extraction tool is otherwise available in this environment, so a custom zlib-based extractor was used, the same technique that worked for a DOLCE 2022 paper elsewhere in this repository. DOLCE's own Physical Object content in this crosswalk remains secondary-sourced (the manual-extraction pass focused on Role/Quality-relevant DOLCE passages and all of UFO; DOLCE's Physical Object specifically was not re-checked against the extracted D18 text in this pass — see Future Work).

Labels, Alternate Labels, and Source Terminology

Role	Label or term	Source	Language	Notes
XwkOnt working label	Object	XwkOnt	en	Matches xwkont-core:Object (rdfs:subClassOf xwkont-core:Continuant) in data/ontology/core.ttl.
Source term	Object (under Material Entity, Independent Continuant)	BFO	en
Source term	Physical Object (under Physical Endurant)	DOLCE	en
Source term	Object (aka Functional Complex), a leaf category of Substantial	UFO	en	Corrected 2026-07-01 — UFO does have a formal "Object" term; see Scope Note.
Source term	Object (under Physical)	SUMO	en
Source term	Material object (under Discrete Presential)	GFO	en	GFO's own class label; Material_persistant's definition explicitly glosses this lineage as "continuants or objects."
Source term	Object (relationally defined, interface of internal/external processes)	YAMATO	en	No single-word class label found in the fetched technical report; YAMATO defines "object" prose-style rather than as a taxonomy node in this source.
Alternate label	object	TUpper	en	Reused from continuant-occurrent.md's TUpper correspondence — same PSL-derived, negatively-defined term.
Alternate label	DecomposableObject / NonDecomposableObject	GUM	en	Both direct subclasses of SimpleThing; a discourse/parts-mentioned criterion, not a metaphysical one.

Source Definitions and Contextual Notes

Source	Term or identifier	Dimension	Claim type	Definition, quotation, or paraphrase	Reference	Locator	Notes
BFO	Object (BFO_0000030)	technical	direct quotation	"(Elucidation) An object is a material entity which manifests causal unity & is of a type instances of which are maximal relative to the sort of causal unity manifested." Examples: "An organism; a fish tank; a planet; a laptop; a valve; a block of marble; an ice cube." Scope note in the primary source: "A description of three primary sorts of causal unity is provided in Basic Formal Ontology 2.0. Specification and User Guide."	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020	verified: bfo-core.ttl, class BFO_0000030, fetched and read directly 2026-07-01	Corrects earlier paraphrase's wording ("maximal relative to this criterion of causal unity") to the primary text's exact phrasing ("maximal relative to the sort of causal unity manifested") — same meaning, now exact.
BFO	Object vs. Fiat Object Part	technical	paraphrase	Objects have bona fide (mind-independent) boundaries; fiat object parts are also causally unified but have mind-dependent (fiat) boundaries.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020	secondary-source paraphrase; not re-verified against the primary source's Fiat Object Part class specifically in this pass
DOLCE	Physical Object	technical	direct quotation	"The main characteristic of objects is that they are endurants with unity. However, they have no common unity criterion, since different subtypes of objects may have different unity criteria. Differently from aggregates, (most) objects change some of their parts while keeping their identity." Contrasted with Amounts of Matter: "endurants with no unity (... none of them is an essential whole)."	xwkont:ref:dolce-wonderweb-d18	verified: WonderWeb D18 PDF, manually extracted 2026-07-01 (via the same zlib-stream technique used for the DOLCE 2022 and UFO 2021 papers)	Confirms the earlier paraphrase closely; the primary text additionally clarifies that DOLCE deliberately does not commit to one universal unity criterion across all Object subtypes.
DOLCE	Agentive / Non-Agentive Physical Object	technical	paraphrase	Physical Objects are further analyzed into Agentive and Non-Agentive depending on whether they may have intentions (e.g., a person is agentive).	xwkont:ref:dolce-wonderweb-d18	secondary-source paraphrase; not re-located in the extracted D18 text in this pass	Not addressed further in this crosswalk — see Uncertainty.
UFO	Substantial (genus, not itself a leaf category)	technical	direct quotation	"UFO accounts for the existence of both independent and dependent endurants. Independent endurants are called substantials, while those that existentially depend on other individuals are dubbed moments."	xwkont:ref:ufo-2021	verified: Applied Ontology 2021 PDF, manually extracted 2026-07-01	Substantial is the genus (independent endurant); Object is one of its leaf species — see next row. This corrects the earlier draft's framing of Substantial as itself the Object-equivalent.
UFO	Object (aka Functional Complex)	technical	direct quotation	"Objects (aka functional complexes) are entities whose parts play differentiated functional roles with respect to the whole, e.g., a human body, an organization, a computer, John's car." Contrasted with sibling Substantial leaf categories: "Quantities are maximally-topologically-self-connected (e.g., pieces) of homeomerous amounts of matter" and "Collectives are entities whose parts play the same role with respect to the whole, e.g., the Black Forest (as a collective of trees)."	xwkont:ref:ufo-2021	verified: Applied Ontology 2021 PDF, manually extracted 2026-07-01	Major correction: UFO does have a formal class named "Object," contrary to this crosswalk's original claim. Object is a leaf category of Substantial, alongside Quantity and Collective, distinguished by parts playing differentiated functional roles (vs. Quantity's homeomeric matter or Collective's same-role parts).
UFO	Kind	technical	paraphrase	A Kind is a rigid sortal endurant type providing uniform principles of individuation, identity, and persistence to its instances. UFO's formal apparatus pairs Kind with each leaf category: ObjectKind/ObjectType, CollectiveKind/CollectiveType, QuantityKind/QuantityType, RelatorKind/RelatorType, ModeKind/ModeType, QualityKind/QualityType.	xwkont:ref:ufo-2021	verified: Applied Ontology 2021 PDF, manually extracted 2026-07-01 (paraphrased from the formal axiom schema, not a single prose sentence)	Corrects the earlier framing: Kind is not an alternative to Object — it's a sortal-classification mechanism that applies to Object (as ObjectKind) and to every other leaf category equally.
SUMO	Object	technical	direct quotation	"(subclass Object Physical)... Corresponds roughly to the class of ordinary objects. Examples include normal physical objects, geographical regions, and locations of Processes, the complement of Objects in the Physical class. In a 4D ontology, an Object is something whose spatiotemporal extent is thought of as dividing into spatial parts roughly parallel to the time-axis."	xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001	verified: Merge.kif, documentation Object EnglishLanguage, fetched and read directly 2026-07-01	Resolves uncertainty-002 partially: SUMO's Object has no explicit unity/individuation axiom analogous to BFO's causal unity — its defining criterion is the 4D spatial-parts-vs-temporal-parts distinction relative to Process, confirmed directly rather than absent from the record.
GFO	Material object	technical	direct quotation	"A material structure is an individual which satisfies the following conditions: it is a presential, it occupies space, it is a bearer of qualities, but other entities cannot have it as quality, and it consists of an amount of substrate, and it instantiates a persistant ('has identity')."	xwkont:ref:gfo	verified: modules/gfo-base.owl, class Material_object, fetched and read directly 2026-07-02 (reusing the artifact fetched for continuant-occurrent.md)	Subclass of Discrete_presential; owl:disjointWith Configuration and Material_boundary.
GFO	Material persistant	technical	direct quotation	"Material persistants are particular universals whose instances are material structures; they are related to those entities which are called sometimes continuants or objects, as apples, cars or houses."	xwkont:ref:gfo	verified: modules/gfo-base.owl, class Material_persistant, fetched and read directly 2026-07-02	GFO's own text uses "continuants or objects" to gloss this lineage — a rare case of a source ontology explicitly using XwkOnt's own crosswalk vocabulary.
YAMATO	Object	technical	direct quotation	"[R]ather than trying to characterize an object in terms of its internal processes..., we would rather say that an object is a unity which is what enacts its external processes. We could indeed say that the object is the interface between its internal and external processes: it is a point of stability in the world in virtue of which certain processes are characterized as internal and others as external."	xwkont:ref:yamato-mizoguchi-2010	verified: 2010 technical report PDF, Section 5 ("Objects, Processes and Events"), manually extracted 2026-07-02	Quotes and builds on Galton (2009)'s "the water falls, but the waterfall doesn't fall" example. Defines Object relationally (as an interface between internal/external processes), not by an intrinsic unity criterion like BFO's causal unity or DOLCE's unity criterion.
TUpper	object	technical	direct quotation	"An object is anything that is not a timepoint, nor an activity nor an activity-occurrence. Intuitively, an object is a concrete or abstract thing that can participate in an activity."	xwkont:ref:tupper-colore	verified: TUpper-Terms.html, term object, fetched and read directly 2026-07-02 (reusing the artifact fetched for continuant-occurrent.md)	Same negative-definition term already documented in continuant-occurrent.md; TUpper has no separate, more specific "Object" concept below this top-level term.
GUM	DecomposableObject	technical	direct quotation	"An object that is being viewed as being made up of parts that may be taken apart and are often given explicit linguistic recognition."	xwkont:ref:gum-owl	verified: GUM-31.owl, class DecomposableObject, fetched and read directly 2026-07-02	Subclass of SimpleThing; owl:disjointWith NonDecomposableObject. Criterion is about linguistic recognition of parts, not a metaphysical unity test.
GUM	NonDecomposableObject	technical	direct quotation	"An object that is being regarded as not possessing significant parts, or which is not to be considered decomposable for present purposes."	xwkont:ref:gum-owl	verified: GUM-31.owl, class NonDecomposableObject, fetched and read directly 2026-07-02	Subclass of SimpleThing; the pairing (Decomposable/NonDecomposable) is GUM's own closest analog to "Object" as a category, not a single class named "Object."
BFO/DOLCE	philosophical framing (inherited)	philosophical	inference	The realist (BFO) vs. cognitive/linguistic (DOLCE) contrast documented for the top-level Continuant/Occurrent split in continuant-occurrent.md (citing xwkont:ref:borgo-galton-kutz-2022) is inferred to extend to the Object level (BFO's bona-fide-boundary criterion reads as mind-independent/realist; DOLCE's unity criterion is presented as part of a classification scheme, consistent with a cognitive orientation), but no source was found in this pass making that Object-specific comparison explicitly.	xwkont:ref:borgo-galton-kutz-2022	inference, not a directly cited Object-level passage	Flagged explicitly as an inference rather than a confirmed claim — see Uncertainty.

Source Ontology Correspondences

Correspondence ID	Source ontology	Source term	Source identifier or IRI	Source version	Reference	Inclusion rationale
xwkont:correspondence:object:001	BFO	Object	BFO_0000030	BFO 2020	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020	Direct subclass of Material Entity under Independent Continuant; closest structural match to XwkOnt's own xwkont-core:Object.
xwkont:correspondence:object:002	DOLCE	Physical Object	http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/DOLCE-Lite.owl#physical-object (confirmed directly, 2026-07-01)	WonderWeb D18, 2003	xwkont:ref:dolce-wonderweb-d18, xwkont:ref:dolce-lite-owl	Uses an explicit unity criterion comparable to BFO's causal unity.
xwkont:correspondence:object:003	UFO	Object (aka Functional Complex)	not applicable — UFO's 2021 paper has no IRI scheme of its own; see continuant-occurrent.md's correspondence rows 005/006 for the gUFO caveat	Applied Ontology, 2021	xwkont:ref:ufo-2021	Direct terminological and structural match — a genuine UFO term, corrected from the original draft's claim that none existed.
xwkont:correspondence:object:004	UFO	ObjectKind	not applicable — same as row 003	Applied Ontology, 2021	xwkont:ref:ufo-2021	The sortal-classification pairing specific to Object; captures the individuation/identity criterion.
xwkont:correspondence:object:005	SUMO	Object	Object (SUMO/SUO-KIF has no separate opaque identifier scheme — the term name itself is the identifier)	2001 (Niles & Pease)	xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001	Included as an exploratory analog; formal criterion not confirmed — see Uncertainty.
xwkont:correspondence:object:006	GFO	Material object	https://w3id.org/gfo/base/Material_object	GFO 2024-11-18 release (directly verified 2026-07-02)	xwkont:ref:gfo	GFO's Material_persistant class explicitly glosses this lineage as "continuants or objects" — the strongest direct terminological self-identification of any of the four ADR-0015 sources for this concept.
xwkont:correspondence:object:007	YAMATO	Object	not applicable — the 2010 technical report defines "object" in prose (Section 5), not as a numbered/IRI'd taxonomy node; YAMATO's OWL files were not fetched in this pass (registration-gated, see xwkont:ref:yamato-mizoguchi-2010)	2010 technical report (directly verified 2026-07-02)	xwkont:ref:yamato-mizoguchi-2010	Included despite the lack of an IRI because the definition itself (object as interface between internal/external processes) is a substantive, citable philosophical claim distinct from BFO/DOLCE's unity criteria.
xwkont:correspondence:object:008	TUpper	object	object (same identifier convention as continuant-occurrent.md's TUpper rows — the term name itself, no opaque ID scheme)	COLORE formalization (directly verified 2026-07-02); ISO/IEC 21838-4:2023 standard text not independently accessed	xwkont:ref:tupper-colore	TUpper has no term more specific than its top-level object; reused from continuant-occurrent.md.
xwkont:correspondence:object:009	GUM	DecomposableObject	http://www.ontospace.uni-bremen.de/ontology/stable/GUM-3.owl#DecomposableObject	GUM 3.1 (directly verified 2026-07-02, via Internet Archive)	xwkont:ref:gum-owl	Direct subclass of SimpleThing; included as a structural analog only, same rationale as SUMO's Object row (005).
xwkont:correspondence:object:010	GUM	NonDecomposableObject	http://www.ontospace.uni-bremen.de/ontology/stable/GUM-3.owl#NonDecomposableObject	GUM 3.1 (directly verified 2026-07-02, via Internet Archive)	xwkont:ref:gum-owl	Sibling class to row 009; together they are GUM's closest analog to a single "Object" category.

Semantic Comparison Notes

Note ID	Dimension	Claim type	Note	Supporting references	Confidence
note-001	technical	editorial observation	BFO and DOLCE both use an explicit unity criterion to distinguish Object-like entities from mere amounts of matter: BFO's causal unity (contrasted with fiat object parts by boundary type) and DOLCE's unity (contrasted with Amount of Matter, which lacks it, per the now-verified D18 quotation). UFO's Object is distinguished from its sibling leaf categories (Quantity, Collective) by a different criterion — differentiated (vs. homeomeric or same-role) functional parts — but all three sources converge on distinguishing Object from "mere stuff" via some structural/functional criterion. This is a genuine three-way structural convergence, not just similar labels.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:dolce-wonderweb-d18, xwkont:ref:ufo-2021	high
note-002	technical	editorial observation	Corrected 2026-07-01: UFO does have a formal Object category (a leaf species of Substantial, alongside Quantity and Collective), contrary to this crosswalk's original claim. Kind is not an alternative to Object — it is a sortal-classification mechanism (ObjectKind, QuantityKind, etc.) that applies uniformly across all Substantial and Moment leaf categories, providing the individuation/identity criterion for whichever category it's paired with.	xwkont:ref:ufo-2021	high
note-003	technical	editorial observation	SUMO's Object is comparatively loose ("tangible or corporeal items") without a confirmed formal unity or individuation criterion analogous to BFO/DOLCE's, consistent with continuant-occurrent.md's observation that SUMO prioritizes engineering interoperability over explicit philosophical criteria at the top level.	xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001	medium
note-004	philosophical	inference	The realist/cognitive-linguistic contrast documented for BFO vs. DOLCE at the Continuant/Occurrent level plausibly extends to the Object level (bona-fide boundaries as a realist criterion vs. unity as a classification-scheme criterion), but this crosswalk found no source making that comparison explicitly at the Object level specifically — this is an inference, not a confirmed citation.	xwkont:ref:borgo-galton-kutz-2022	low
note-005	technical	editorial observation	Unlike BFO/DOLCE/UFO's intrinsic unity criteria or SUMO's loose engineering framing, GFO and YAMATO each define their Object-equivalent by a different route: GFO's Material_object is defined structurally (presential + spatial occupation + quality-bearing + substrate + persistant-instantiation, i.e. a conjunction of independently-defined GFO categories, not a standalone unity test), while YAMATO defines Object relationally (as the interface between an entity's internal and external processes, following Galton 2009). TUpper and GUM continue the pattern already established at the Continuant/Occurrent level (continuant-occurrent.md's note-004): structural analogs only, no positive persistence/unity criterion offered.	xwkont:ref:gfo, xwkont:ref:yamato-mizoguchi-2010, xwkont:ref:tupper-colore, xwkont:ref:gum-owl	high (verified directly against each source's own text)

Mapping Assertions or Candidate Relations

Mapping ID	Subject	Relation category	Object	predicate_id	mapping_justification	Status	Confidence	Rationale	Provenance
xwkont:mapping:object:001	BFO:Object	close-match	DOLCE:Physical Object	skos:closeMatch	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	high	Both use an explicit unity criterion distinguishing Object from mere matter/stuff. Not exact-equivalence-candidate given the differing philosophical framing inferred in note-004.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:dolce-wonderweb-d18
xwkont:mapping:object:002	BFO:Object	close-match	UFO:Object	skos:closeMatch	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	high	Revised 2026-07-01: both are genuine, directly named formal categories with a structural/functional distinguishing criterion (BFO: causal unity; UFO: differentiated functional parts). Raised from the original draft's medium confidence now that UFO:Object is confirmed to exist and be a direct terminological match, not just a partial structural analog.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:ufo-2021
xwkont:mapping:object:003	DOLCE:Physical Object	close-match	UFO:Object	skos:closeMatch	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	high	Same revision as mapping-002; UFO's endurant theory directly continues DOLCE's lineage (per continuant-occurrent.md mapping-005), and both now confirmed as directly named, structurally comparable categories.	xwkont:ref:dolce-wonderweb-d18, xwkont:ref:ufo-2021
xwkont:mapping:object:004	BFO:Object	unknown	SUMO:Object	none	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	low	SUMO's Object is broader/looser; no confirmed formal unity criterion found in this pass. Consistent with continuant-occurrent.md's low-confidence SUMO treatment.	xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001
xwkont:mapping:object:005	DOLCE:Physical Object	unknown	SUMO:Object	none	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	low	Same rationale as mapping-004.	xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001
xwkont:mapping:object:006	BFO:Object	close-match	GFO:Material object	skos:closeMatch	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	medium	Both are structurally-defined material individuals with identity-bearing persistence, but GFO's definition is a conjunction of independently-defined GFO categories (presential, substrate-consisting, persistant-instantiating) rather than a single unity criterion like BFO's causal unity — medium rather than high pending closer comparison of the two criteria's actual extension.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:gfo
xwkont:mapping:object:007	BFO:Object	close-match	YAMATO:Object	skos:closeMatch	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	medium	Both pick out ordinary material individuals (organisms, artifacts), but the defining criterion differs sharply: BFO's causal unity is intrinsic to the object, while YAMATO's "interface between internal and external processes" is explicitly relational/process-dependent. Not high because the two criteria could diverge on edge cases (e.g., YAMATO's own river/waterfall examples turn on process-boundary judgments BFO's causal-unity criterion does not require).	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:yamato-mizoguchi-2010
xwkont:mapping:object:008	BFO:Object	unknown	TUpper:object	none	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	low	Same rationale as continuant-occurrent.md mapping-012: TUpper's object is defined negatively and has no more specific sub-term for this concept; equivalence to BFO's positively-defined Object is not established by the definition text alone.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:tupper-colore
xwkont:mapping:object:009	BFO:Object	unknown	GUM:DecomposableObject	none	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	low	Structural analog only, same rationale as SUMO's Object mapping (mapping-004): GUM's Decomposable/NonDecomposable split is a discourse-level (parts mentioned in text) criterion, not BFO's causal-unity criterion.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:gum-owl

Uncertainty, Non-Equivalence, and Open Questions

Item ID	Type	Description	Impact	Follow-up
uncertainty-001	~~uncertainty~~ resolved 2026-07-01, as a correction	UFO's primary source was read directly and in full for this concept: UFO does have a formal Object category (leaf species of Substantial), and Kind is an orthogonal sortal-classification mechanism applying to it (and every other leaf category), not a competing alternative to "Object." The original "labeling mismatch" framing was incorrect.	mapping-002/mapping-003 raised from medium to high confidence.	Resolved. OntoUML sortality literature beyond the 2021 paper itself was not additionally consulted, but is no longer needed to resolve this specific question.
uncertainty-002	~~uncertainty~~ resolved 2026-07-01	SUMO's Merge.kif confirms directly: Object has no unity/individuation axiom analogous to BFO's causal unity. Its actual defining criterion is 4D spatial-parts-vs-temporal-parts division relative to Process (i.e., Object is essentially defined by contrast with Process, not by an intrinsic unity test).	mapping-004/mapping-005 confidence can stay low, but now for a confirmed reason (genuinely no comparable criterion exists) rather than an absence in the search results.	Resolved — no further action needed.
uncertainty-003	open-question	Whether DOLCE's Agentive/Non-Agentive split within Physical Object has any analog in BFO, UFO, or SUMO is not addressed in this crosswalk.	No mapping assertion currently addresses agentivity.	Consider as future work, possibly its own comparison note once primary sources are read.
uncertainty-004	uncertainty	note-004's philosophical-dimension claim is an inference extending continuant-occurrent.md's top-level citation to the Object level, not a directly cited Object-specific philosophical comparison.	Confidence on note-004 capped at low; no mapping assertion relies on it.	Find a source explicitly comparing BFO's and DOLCE's philosophical stance specifically at the Object/Physical-Object level.
uncertainty-005	open-question	Same gaps already disclosed in continuant-occurrent.md's uncertainty-005, inherited here: YAMATO's OWL/Hozo files were not fetched (registration-gated), so correspondence-007 has no IRI; the three sources' dedicated 2022 Applied Ontology papers (YAMATO, TUpper, GUM) were not accessed (Cloudflare block).	Lower-precision locator for YAMATO's Object correspondence than for GFO/TUpper/GUM.	Same follow-up as continuant-occurrent.md's uncertainty-005 — resolving it there resolves it here too, since both crosswalks depend on the same underlying source artifacts.

Provenance and References

• xwkont:ref:bfo-2020 — Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) 2020 / ISO/IEC 21838-2:2021 — verified directly against bfo-core.ttl, 2026-07-01
• xwkont:ref:dolce-wonderweb-d18 — WonderWeb Deliverable D18: Ontology Library (Masolo et al., 2003) — verified directly (manual PDF extraction), 2026-07-01
• xwkont:ref:dolce-lite-owl — DOLCE-Lite OWL translation — verified directly (fetched as plain-text RDF/XML), 2026-07-01; supplies the exact physical-object class IRI
• xwkont:ref:ufo-2021 — UFO: Unified Foundational Ontology (Guizzardi et al., 2021) — verified directly (manual PDF extraction), 2026-07-01
• xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001 — Towards a Standard Upper Ontology (Niles & Pease, 2001) — verified directly against current SUMO Merge.kif, 2026-07-01
• xwkont:ref:borgo-galton-kutz-2022 — Foundational ontologies in action (Borgo, Galton, Kutz, 2022) — unverified (PDF-extraction blocked separately; not attempted in this pass)
• xwkont:ref:gfo — General Formal Ontology (GFO), 2024-11-18 release — verified directly (modules/gfo-base.owl, classes Material_object/Material_persistant), 2026-07-02
• xwkont:ref:yamato-mizoguchi-2010 — YAMATO: Yet Another More Advanced Top-level Ontology, 2010 technical report (Mizoguchi) — verified directly (manual PDF extraction, Section 5), 2026-07-02
• xwkont:ref:tupper-colore — TUpper (COLORE CLIF/OWL formalization, Grüninger) — verified directly (TUpper-Terms.html, term object), 2026-07-02; reused from continuant-occurrent.md
• xwkont:ref:gum-owl — GUM: The Generalized Upper Model, OWL 3.1 (Bateman) — verified directly (GUM-31.owl, classes DecomposableObject/NonDecomposableObject), 2026-07-02

Review History

Review ID	Date	Outcome	Notes
xwkont:review:object:2026-07-01:01	2026-07-01	Passed — advanced draft → reviewed	Checked against docs/governance/contributing.md's Review Checklist: scope preserved; all four source-ontology claims verified directly, including the significant UFO Object correction (originally claimed absent, confirmed present as a formal Substantial leaf category); mapping categories/confidence valid; every xwkont:ref:* citation resolves. One disclosed gap: xwkont:ref:borgo-galton-kutz-2022 remains unverified (a single philosophical-framing citation, not a core definitional claim) — recorded in Provenance/Future Work, not glossed over. Self-review, not independent third-party review; noted here rather than implied otherwise.
—	2026-07-02	Editorial status reverted reviewed → candidate	The ADR-0015 buildout (GFO/YAMATO/TUpper/GUM correspondences 006-010, mappings 006-009, four reference-record cross-citations) added new, not-yet-reviewed content, following the same precedent continuant-occurrent.md set. Awaiting a maintainer review pass before advancing back to reviewed.
xwkont:review:object:2026-07-02:02	2026-07-02	Passed — advanced candidate → reviewed	Consolidated review pass, per docs/governance/contributing.md's Review Checklist, of the ADR-0015 buildout content across all 8 concept crosswalks. Checked: scope preserved; every xwkont:ref:* citation resolves; correspondence/mapping/note/uncertainty ID numbering sequential with no gaps or duplicates; relation-category and confidence values compliant with docs/methodology/crosswalk-methodology.md/ADR-0013; spot-checked primary-source quotations against fetched artifacts and found no transcription errors. Self-review performed at the maintainer's explicit request, not independent third-party review.

Future Work

• ~~Read xwkont:ref:dolce-wonderweb-d18 and xwkont:ref:ufo-2021 in full primary-source detail~~ — done 2026-07-01 via manual PDF-stream extraction; found and corrected a significant error (UFO's Object category).
• ~~Read SUMO's current Merge.kif source directly~~ — done 2026-07-01, uncertainty-002 resolved.
• ~~Read OntoUML sortality literature / UFO primary source to firm up the Object/Kind structural comparison~~ — done 2026-07-01, uncertainty-001 resolved.
• Confirm exact IRIs/identifiers for each source term (currently unknown in Source Ontology Correspondences).
• Verify xwkont:ref:borgo-galton-kutz-2022 (the one remaining secondary source) if the philosophical-framing inference in note-004 needs to move beyond low confidence.
• ~~Add GFO/YAMATO/TUpper/GUM correspondences~~ — done 2026-07-02, reusing the primary-source artifacts fetched for continuant-occurrent.md. Correspondences 006-010, mappings 006-009 added; awaiting maintainer review.
• Fetch YAMATO's OWL/Hozo files if the maintainer completes the hozo.jp registration form, to give correspondence-007 an IRI (currently not applicable, cited by section/quotation only).
• Compare GFO's Material_object structural definition (presential + substrate + persistant-instantiation) against BFO's causal-unity criterion in more depth, to decide whether mapping-006 should move from medium to high.