<p>Interesting question. "Ontology" is often used in confusing and polyvalent ways, so let's start by clearing up the terminology very quickly for those who aren't intimate with the various different meanings. </p>

<h2>What does "ontology" mean?</h2>

<p>Broadly, <em>ontology the field</em> is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology" rel="nofollow noreferrer">philosophical study of being</a>. <em>An ontology</em> is a method for establishing what beings or entities <em>may</em> exist (cf. epistemology's whether we should believe they exist), how they may be grouped, and the relations they may have. </p>

<p>In information and computer science, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"ontology"</a> is used in a related, but not identical sense to refer to formally defined sets of types, properties and the relationships between them. To answer your question, then, relations compose <em>part</em> of an ontology, but ontologies do not comprise sets of relations and nothing but sets of relations. From the Wikipedia page:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>An ontology is a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can formally exist for an agent or a community of agents.</strong> This definition is consistent with the usage of ontology as set of concept definitions, but more general. And it is a different sense of the word than its use in philosophy. -- Tom Gruber, <a href="http://tomgruber.org/writing/onto-design.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing</a>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><sub>(<a href="http://tomgruber.org/writing/ontology-definition-2007.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gruber updated the definition in 2007</a>, but it is not so much different as an extension.)</sub></p>

<h2>Ontologies and ACT-R</h2>

<p><a href="http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/about/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ACT-R</a> defines a basic ontology with the entities <strong>modules, buffers and pattern-matchers</strong>, ways to group entities within their type (e.g., <strong>perceptual-motor vs. memory modules</strong>), and the relations between them.</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Zkm1V.gif" alt="ACT-R"></p>

<p>We use ontologies to abstract away from particular data structures. The <strong>ACT-R cognitive architecture both implies and specifies an ontology, and we can use that ontology to extend ACT-R, or make ACT-R talk to other architectures</strong> which may not have any data structure overlap with ACT-R. Oltramari et al. (2014) provides an apt concrete ("real"?) example. They coupled ACT-R to the SCOPE knowledge management system, where they use concrete information science ontologies in order to extend ACT-R to use abstract philosophical ontologies. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In general, ACT-R models only employ as much knowledge as required to perform well-defined cognitive tasks. By and large, they can be seen as “monadic” agents, whose knowledge bases are limited, partially reusable and sporadically portable across experimental conditions. On the contrary, in order to replicate high-level contextual reasoning and pattern recognition in humans, large amount of common-sense knowledge should be available to ACTR: <strong>to overcome these limitations, we propose to equip ACT-R with a specific module for processing ontologies [philosophical sense], i.e. semantic specifications of a given domain or application (Guarino, 1998) [information science sense]</strong>, which are generally used in combination with inference engines for deductive reasoning. Since the ACT-R declarative module supports a relatively coarse-grained semantics based on slot-value pairs, and the procedural system is not optimal to effectively manage complex logical constructs, a specific extension is needed to make ACT-R suitable to fulfill knowledge-intensive cognitive tasks like context-driven spatial reasoning. Accordingly, <strong>we engineered an extra module as a bridging component between the cognitive architecture and an external knowledge-base system KBS, SCONE</strong> (Fahlman, 2006). </p>
</blockquote>

<h2>References</h2>

<ul>
<li>Oltramari, A., Vinokurov, Y., Lebiere, C., Oh, J., &amp; Stentz, A. (2014, March). Ontology-Based Cognitive System for Contextual Reasoning in Robot Architectures. In 2014 AAAI Spring Symposium Series.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-11T06:35:16.733Z
Thanks for answering my question I have been reading the paper [Towards a Cognitive System for Decision Support in Cyber Operations](http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1097/STIDS2013_T13_OltramariEtAl.pdf) and I have been trying to understand the the structure of the system proposed by it, specially [Figure 2](http://i58.tinypic.com/zoj88i.jpg) that shows the relation between ACT-R, Ontologies and the TENA framework. I was wondering if you could help me in understanding it. I will ask a question on CS if it's needed for you to answer me.
Freelancer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-11T07:37:03.353Z
From a cognitive science perspective, they're just hooking a couple of cybersecurity ontologies into ACT-R's declarative memory. For example, the bridging module between the TENA repo and ACT-R converts the TENA repo's idea of a "spearphishing email" into something ACT-R can understand and act on. You might think about it analogously to how sound waves are converted to neural signals in the ear.
Christian Hummeluhr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-11T07:46:20.767Z
What is the difference between the scenario ontologies and cyber security ontologies? Does the event management module do anything special in the system? My idea is that upon each event occurred for example a cyber attack a scenario ontology is chosen and system acts upon the attack with the chosen scenario.
Freelancer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-11T08:44:11.033Z
I don't think the paper specifies beyond proposing the "design and development of applied formal ontologies to 1) serve as a knowledge base for our cognitive models (Cyber Security Ontologies) and
to 2) classify and annotate cyber security test and training data (Scenario Ontologies)."
Christian Hummeluhr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-11T10:00:37.590Z
I have read papers about scenario ontologies like [SOFERS Scenario Ontology for Emergency Response System](http://ojs.academypublisher.com/index.php/jnw/article/viewFile/jnw090925292535/10075) describing the scenario (by ontology) for facing an emergency situation like an earthquake and giving it the instances needed for testing it in a prototype system. Does the ontology built from  **cyber security test and training data** represent such ontology? what kind of knowledge the scenario ontology represent?
Freelancer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-11T10:05:42.317Z
The ontology is not the data as such, but rather the structure that allows, say, ACT-R to use the TENA repo in or as its declarative memory.
Christian Hummeluhr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-11T11:17:00.407Z
By saying "The bridging module between the TENA repo and ACT-R converts the TENA repo's idea of a "spearphishing email" into something ACT-R can understand and act on" you mean that cyber security ontologies make the idea of "spearphishing email" that is in TENA's repo understandable for ACT-R or do you mean that we have to build cyber security ontologies that represent the ideas like "spearphishing email" and then these ontologies are understandable for ACT-R?
Freelancer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-11T12:30:11.330Z
I don't know. Coming at this from an ACT-R perspective, I would say those two options are not meaningfully different, but since ACT-R is kind of tangential here, that question may be better suited for the CS SE. If you crosspost, I'd appreciate a link (it's an interesting question).
Christian Hummeluhr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-13T17:36:26.823Z
I asked a question about the difference between the two ontologies and other questions raising from [Figure 2](http://i58.tinypic.com/zoj88i.jpg) on CS SE. And here is the [Link](http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/43558/what-is-the-difference-between-cyber-security-ontologies-and-scenario-ontologies).
Freelancer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-05T11:21:30.153Z
2015-05-05T11:27:52.753Z
2015-05-05T11:27:52.753Z
Christian Hummeluhr
<p>I have read many papers and books about ontologies, and I am trying to figure out that how they are used in a real project. For example, how can the ontology for a soccer player robot can be defined and used with a cognitive architecture in order to make it intelligent?</p>

<p>Are ontologies relations between terms in that domain of knowledge (for example relation between the ball and foot word, and physical rules definition and their relation with the foot and ball movement) or relations between tactics, strategies and different mixture of tactics?</p>

<p>Are there any clear examples of ontology usage in real projects and their combining usage with the cognitive architectures like ACT-R for augmenting the cognitive architecture?</p>

<cognitive-modeling><computational-modeling>
What are the practical uses of ontologies?
Freelancer
# What are the practical uses of ontologies?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-01-26)

I have read many papers and books about ontologies, and I am trying to figure out that how they are used in a real project. For example, how can the ontology for a soccer player robot can be defined and used with a cognitive architecture in order to make it intelligent?

Are ontologies relations between terms in that domain of knowledge (for example relation between the ball and foot word, and physical rules definition and their relation with the foot and ball movement) or relations between tactics, strategies and different mixture of tactics?

Are there any clear examples of ontology usage in real projects and their combining usage with the cognitive architectures like ACT-R for augmenting the cognitive architecture?

**Tags:** cognitive-modeling, computational-modeling


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2015-05-05. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

Interesting question. "Ontology" is often used in confusing and polyvalent ways, so let's start by clearing up the terminology very quickly for those who aren't intimate with the various different meanings.

## What does "ontology" mean?

Broadly, *ontology the field* is the [philosophical study of being](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology). *An ontology* is a method for establishing what beings or entities *may* exist (cf. epistemology's whether we should believe they exist), how they may be grouped, and the relations they may have.

In information and computer science, ["ontology"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)) is used in a related, but not identical sense to refer to formally defined sets of types, properties and the relationships between them. To answer your question, then, relations compose *part* of an ontology, but ontologies do not comprise sets of relations and nothing but sets of relations. From the Wikipedia page:

> **An ontology is a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can formally exist for an agent or a community of agents.** This definition is consistent with the usage of ontology as set of concept definitions, but more general. And it is a different sense of the word than its use in philosophy. -- Tom Gruber, [Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing](http://tomgruber.org/writing/onto-design.htm).

([Gruber updated the definition in 2007](http://tomgruber.org/writing/ontology-definition-2007.htm), but it is not so much different as an extension.)

## Ontologies and ACT-R

[ACT-R](http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/about/) defines a basic ontology with the entities **modules, buffers and pattern-matchers**, ways to group entities within their type (e.g., **perceptual-motor vs. memory modules**), and the relations between them.

![ACT-R](https://i.sstatic.net/Zkm1V.gif)

We use ontologies to abstract away from particular data structures. The **ACT-R cognitive architecture both implies and specifies an ontology, and we can use that ontology to extend ACT-R, or make ACT-R talk to other architectures** which may not have any data structure overlap with ACT-R. Oltramari et al. (2014) provides an apt concrete ("real"?) example. They coupled ACT-R to the SCOPE knowledge management system, where they use concrete information science ontologies in order to extend ACT-R to use abstract philosophical ontologies.

> In general, ACT-R models only employ as much knowledge as required to perform well-defined cognitive tasks. By and large, they can be seen as “monadic” agents, whose knowledge bases are limited, partially reusable and sporadically portable across experimental conditions. On the contrary, in order to replicate high-level contextual reasoning and pattern recognition in humans, large amount of common-sense knowledge should be available to ACTR: **to overcome these limitations, we propose to equip ACT-R with a specific module for processing ontologies [philosophical sense], i.e. semantic specifications of a given domain or application (Guarino, 1998) [information science sense]**, which are generally used in combination with inference engines for deductive reasoning. Since the ACT-R declarative module supports a relatively coarse-grained semantics based on slot-value pairs, and the procedural system is not optimal to effectively manage complex logical constructs, a specific extension is needed to make ACT-R suitable to fulfill knowledge-intensive cognitive tasks like context-driven spatial reasoning. Accordingly, **we engineered an extra module as a bridging component between the cognitive architecture and an external knowledge-base system KBS, SCONE** (Fahlman, 2006).

## References

* Oltramari, A., Vinokurov, Y., Lebiere, C., Oh, J., & Stentz, A. (2014, March). Ontology-Based Cognitive System for Contextual Reasoning in Robot Architectures. In 2014 AAAI Spring Symposium Series.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for answering my question I have been reading the paper [Towards a Cognitive System for Decision Support in Cyber Operations](http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1097/STIDS2013_T13_OltramariEtAl.pdf) and I have been trying to understand the the structure of the system proposed by it, specially [Figure 2](http://i58.tinypic.com/zoj88i.jpg) that shows the relation between ACT-R, Ontologies and the TENA framework. I was wondering if you could help me in understanding it. I will ask a question on CS if it's needed for you to answer me.  
> **username_1**: From a cognitive science perspective, they're just hooking a couple of cybersecurity ontologies into ACT-R's declarative memory. For example, the bridging module between the TENA repo and ACT-R converts the TENA repo's idea of a "spearphishing email" into something ACT-R can understand and act on. You might think about it analogously to how sound waves are converted to neural signals in the ear.  
> **username_0**: What is the difference between the scenario ontologies and cyber security ontologies? Does the event management module do anything special in the system? My idea is that upon each event occurred for example a cyber attack a scenario ontology is chosen and system acts upon the attack with the chosen scenario.  
> **username_1**: I don't think the paper specifies beyond proposing the "design and development of applied formal ontologies to 1) serve as a knowledge base for our cognitive models (Cyber Security Ontologies) and to 2) classify and annotate cyber security test and training data (Scenario Ontologies)."  
> **username_0**: I have read papers about scenario ontologies like [SOFERS Scenario Ontology for Emergency Response System](http://ojs.academypublisher.com/index.php/jnw/article/viewFile/jnw090925292535/10075) describing the scenario (by ontology) for facing an emergency situation like an earthquake and giving it the instances needed for testing it in a prototype system. Does the ontology built from  **cyber security test and training data** represent such ontology? what kind of knowledge the scenario ontology represent?  
> **username_1**: The ontology is not the data as such, but rather the structure that allows, say, ACT-R to use the TENA repo in or as its declarative memory.  
> **username_0**: By saying "The bridging module between the TENA repo and ACT-R converts the TENA repo's idea of a "spearphishing email" into something ACT-R can understand and act on" you mean that cyber security ontologies make the idea of "spearphishing email" that is in TENA's repo understandable for ACT-R or do you mean that we have to build cyber security ontologies that represent the ideas like "spearphishing email" and then these ontologies are understandable for ACT-R?  
> **username_1**: I don't know. Coming at this from an ACT-R perspective, I would say those two options are not meaningfully different, but since ACT-R is kind of tangential here, that question may be better suited for the CS SE. If you crosspost, I'd appreciate a link (it's an interesting question).  
> **username_0**: I asked a question about the difference between the two ontologies and other questions raising from [Figure 2](http://i58.tinypic.com/zoj88i.jpg) on CS SE. And here is the [Link](http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/43558/what-is-the-difference-between-cyber-security-ontologies-and-scenario-ontologies).  

---

