Abstract
Despite the fact that information systems ontologies [ISOs] support the mutual understanding between human beings and software applications, human beings and software applications do not understand ISOs' contents in the same way. The same applies to ontological integration. This paper attempts to account for such discrepancies by emphasizing that while human being can have access to entities represented in ISOs, software applications cannot.
Highlights
[1] ontology does not deal with reality but with alternative possible worlds defined by information systems
This means that ontologists reject the definition of ontology coming from the philosophical investigation, according to which ontology aims to draw a complete inventory of reality by specifying its fundamental structure
Speaking of ontologies, in the plural, indicates a multiplicity of artificial worlds defined by information systems ontologies [ISOs] as well as different ways to represent such worlds
Summary
According to Smith (2003), information systems ontologists generally share the assumption that [1] ontology does not deal with reality but with alternative possible worlds defined by information systems. «It is as if Hamlet, whose hair (we shall suppose) is not mentioned in Shakespeare’s play, would be not merely neither bald nor nonbald, but would somehow have no properties at all as far as hair is concerned»5 (Smith, 2003: 161). This means that, as well as for fiction,. While the city of Cremona does not exist in TV shows such as Game of Thrones and Teletubbies, we cannot exclude its existence in William’s novel Stoner or Manzoni’s I promessi sposi, “Cremona” is never mentioned in these novels
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
