Interlocking gears representing Terminology and Ontology in a Biomedicine data landscape.

Decoding Knowledge: How Ontology and Terminology Theories Shape Our Understanding

Kai Mendoza in Mind & Education August 2025 • 5 min read.

"Exploring the convergence and divergence of Ontology and Terminology in organizing complex information, particularly in Biomedicine."

In today's information age, effectively capturing and structuring human knowledge is essential for building robust systems of knowledge organization. This complex task involves not only defining entities but also establishing clear relationships between them, enabling accurate classification and retrieval. Within the field of information and knowledge representation, both established and emerging theories vie for prominence, each offering unique approaches to this challenge.

Among the established theories, Terminology provides a set of principles governing the study of terms and their application in creating models of reality. The theory focuses on the analysis of terms to create models for communication. Emerging alongside this is Applied Ontology, which applies philosophical principles to the organization of information and knowledge, aiming to construct specific types of knowledge organization systems. As a philosophical concept, it has many aspects.

The field of Biomedicine exemplifies the use of both Terminology and Applied Ontology. Biology and medical vocabularies have been historically based on terminological work. In contrast, biomedical science sees the largest numbers of direct applications of theories related to applied ontology. By comparing these theories, and using biomedicine as an example, we aim to clarify the strengths and weaknesses of each and offer greater assistance in applying them.

Terminology vs. Ontology: Unpacking the Core Concepts

Interlocking gears representing Terminology and Ontology in a Biomedicine data landscape.

Before diving into a practical comparison, it’s crucial to define the specific technical terms used by each theory. This involves understanding the 'dialects' of both Terminology and Applied Ontology—the unique set of technical terms each employs to describe and relate entities. By comparing these dialects, we can identify areas of convergence and divergence, providing a clearer picture of how each theory approaches knowledge organization.

In Terminology, the ISO-704 standard serves as a guiding framework, focusing on principles derived from logic, epistemology, and cognitive science. It emphasizes the creation of hierarchical structures where concepts are organized into superordinate (parent) and subordinate (child) levels. The aim of a definition in terminology is to provide the minimum information necessary for someone to recognize and differentiate a concept, defining it with clarity and precision. For instance, defining 'mechanical mouse' involves identifying its superordinate concept (mouse) and its unique characteristic (using rollers to detect motion).

Relations: The ISO-704 standard also addresses relationships between concepts. Key relationships include generic relations (connecting concepts based on shared characteristics), partitive relations (linking concepts representing parts of a whole), and individual relations (connecting generic concepts to specific instances).
Ontology: In contrast, Applied Ontology, particularly the Basic Formal Ontology (BFO), also operates with a specific vocabulary. Key concepts include:
- Genus-species: The relationship between a general category and its specific types.
- Essence: The fundamental nature of an entity that makes it what it is.
- Necessary and sufficient conditions: The criteria that must be met for an entity to belong to a specific category.
- Multiple inheritance: The ability of an entity to inherit characteristics from multiple parent entities.
Universals and Particulars: Applied Ontology distinguishes between universals (abstract concepts) and particulars (real-world instances). Relationships are categorized based on these distinctions, including:
- Universal to universal: Hierarchical relationships between abstract concepts.
- Instance to universal: Connecting a specific instance to its corresponding abstract concept.
- Instance to instance: Relationships between individual occurrences.

In essence, while Terminology focuses on linguistic precision and hierarchical organization, Applied Ontology delves into the fundamental nature of entities and their relationships, emphasizing both abstract concepts and real-world instances. Comparing these approaches reveals their unique strengths and limitations in tackling the complexities of knowledge representation.

Bridging the Divide: Towards a More Integrated Approach

This comparison highlights both the complementary strengths and the persistent gaps between Terminology and Applied Ontology. While Applied Ontology offers more formal rigor in defining relationships, Terminology provides a systematic approach to crafting definitions. The choice between these theories depends heavily on the specific goals of the knowledge organization system. In Biomedicine, the primary concern is often ensuring a shared understanding, making clarity and preservation of intended meaning paramount. By recognizing the value in both approaches, information professionals can navigate complex domains more effectively, creating knowledge systems that are both robust and accessible.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What are the primary differences between Terminology and Applied Ontology in the context of knowledge organization?

Terminology, particularly adhering to standards like ISO-704, emphasizes linguistic precision and hierarchical structuring using generic, partitive, and individual relations. It focuses on defining terms clearly for effective communication. Applied Ontology, exemplified by Basic Formal Ontology (BFO), explores the fundamental nature of entities and their relationships, distinguishing between universals and particulars, and using concepts like genus-species, essence, necessary and sufficient conditions, and multiple inheritance. While Terminology seeks clarity in definitions, Applied Ontology aims for formal rigor in representing the nature of things and their connections.

How does the ISO-704 standard in Terminology assist in structuring knowledge?

The ISO-704 standard provides a framework for Terminology that emphasizes the creation of hierarchical structures. It organizes concepts into superordinate (parent) and subordinate (child) levels using relations like generic (shared characteristics), partitive (part-whole relationships), and individual relations (connecting concepts to specific instances). The standard guides the creation of precise definitions to ensure that each concept is uniquely identifiable. This organized approach aids in the systematic arrangement and retrieval of information, fostering clarity and consistency.

What role do 'universals' and 'particulars' play in Applied Ontology, and how do they influence relationship categorization?

In Applied Ontology, 'universals' represent abstract concepts, while 'particulars' are real-world instances. The relationships between entities are categorized based on this distinction, encompassing 'universal to universal' (hierarchical relationships between abstract concepts), 'instance to universal' (connecting a specific instance to its abstract concept), and 'instance to instance' (relationships between individual occurrences). This classification allows for a more nuanced understanding of how different types of entities relate to each other, enabling richer knowledge representation. Without this distinction, representing complex relationships would be difficult.

In Biomedicine, why is clarity and preservation of intended meaning paramount when choosing between Terminology and Applied Ontology?

In Biomedicine, ensuring a shared understanding is vital. Terminology's focus on clear and precise definitions, guided by standards like ISO-704, directly supports this goal. While Applied Ontology offers formal rigor, the immediate need in biomedicine often centers on avoiding ambiguity and facilitating effective communication among researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders. Therefore, the systematic approach to crafting definitions in Terminology often takes precedence to maintain the integrity and consistency of medical knowledge.

How can an integrated approach, combining Terminology and Applied Ontology, improve knowledge organization systems?

By recognizing the strengths of both Terminology and Applied Ontology, information professionals can create more robust and accessible knowledge systems. Terminology provides a systematic way to craft clear definitions, while Applied Ontology offers formal rigor in defining relationships. An integrated approach can leverage linguistic precision from Terminology and the ability to represent complex relationships from Applied Ontology. This combined approach can lead to knowledge systems that are both well-defined and capture the intricate connections between entities, making it easier to navigate complex domains.