Skip to content

Foundational Ontologies in Action

Local reference identifier: xwkont:ref:borgo-galton-kutz-2022 Slug: borgo-galton-kutz-2022 Editorial status: candidate Created: 2026-07-01 Modified: 2026-07-02

Descriptive Metadata

Field Value Notes
Title Foundational ontologies in action Editorial introducing a special issue systematically comparing seven foundational ontologies (BFO, DOLCE, GFO, GUM, TUpper, UFO, YAMATO) via common modeling cases.
Creator Stefano Borgo, Antony Galton, Oliver Kutz
Contributor unknown
Publisher Applied Ontology, IOS Press
Source type article (special issue editorial)
Version or edition Applied Ontology 17(1), 2022, pp. 1-16
Identifier or URL DOI: 10.3233/AO-220265 (https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-220265)
Access date 2026-07-01 First surfaced in docs/evaluations/prior-art-survey.md (research conducted 2026-07-01 13:59 Z).
Snapshot / Stable identifier DOI given above serves as the stable identifier; no separate archival snapshot needed per ADR-0012.
Rights/license unknown Not verified in this pass.

Source Relation Notes

This is the editorial introducing an Applied Ontology special issue; the special issue's individual articles (not separately catalogued here) contain the detailed per-ontology case studies. Cite this reference for the editorial's own framing and cross-ontology observations (e.g., the color-modeling example); cite individual special-issue articles separately if a claim traces to one specifically.

Rights and License Notes

Not verified in this pass. Treat as unknown rather than guessed.

Citation and Locator Notes

Recommended citation: Borgo, S., Galton, A., & Kutz, O. (2022). Foundational ontologies in action. Applied Ontology, 17(1), 1-16. Cited in docs/evaluations/prior-art-survey.md and docs/crosswalks/concepts/continuant-occurrent.md as a secondary source comparing how BFO and DOLCE frame their top-level distinctions (BFO's realist framework grounded in scientific practice vs. DOLCE's cognitive/linguistic orientation).

Full-text access attempt (2026-07-02)

Full text remains not retrieved, despite a deliberate attempt using the PDF-extraction technique in docs/methodology/primary-source-verification.md. This differs from that note's other cases: the blocker here is access, not parsing.

  • DOI resolution (https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-220265) redirects to journals.sagepub.com, which returns HTTP 403.
  • The publisher's own host (content.iospress.com, including the direct openAccessPdf download URL returned by the Semantic Scholar Graph API) is behind Cloudflare bot protection; both curl and WebFetch were blocked (403 / HTML challenge page, not a PDF).
  • Unpaywall (api.unpaywall.org) reports oa_status: green, is_oa: true, with a repository copy at the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano's institutional repository (bia.unibz.it) — but that record itself only links back to the same paywalled content.iospress.com URL, not a separate deposited PDF.
  • No self-archived copy was found on any author's page (A. Galton's Exeter page publications list ends at 2018; O. Kutz's Bolzano page publications list ends at 2019).
  • Academia.edu and PhilPapers/PhilArchive list the paper but returned HTTP 403 to automated fetch.

What was verified instead: the paper's title, authors, and full abstract, via the Semantic Scholar Graph API (api.semanticscholar.org/graph/v1/paper/DOI:10.3233/AO-220265, fetched directly with curl, cross-checked against Unpaywall's independent record). The abstract confirms the special issue's motivation and scope (comparative modeling-case papers across foundational ontologies) but does not itself contain the BFO/DOLCE framing claim this reference is cited for — that claim traces to the editorial's body text, still unverified.

Caution: an earlier attempt during this same verification pass to fetch the Semantic Scholar API result via WebFetch (rather than curl) returned a plausible-looking but non-standard JSON payload (invented fields like keyFindings/accessStatus not part of the real API schema) — apparently a fabricated summary rather than the real response, produced when the underlying fetch was obstructed. Direct curl against the same endpoint returned the genuine schema. Treat WebFetch summaries of blocked/paywalled pages as unreliable; prefer a direct HTTP client for anything citation-critical.

Status: still candidate, not reviewed — full text access remains blocked in this environment. If institutional/library access becomes available outside this environment, re-attempt before citing further claims from this source.