Intellectual property (IP) plays a crucial role in fostering innovation and economic growth. However, the complexity of IP rights and their legal frameworks across different jurisdictions poses challenges for standardization and interoperability. Ontologies have emerged as a powerful tool to address these challenges. This study, through a literature review, aims to identify and analyze existing ontologies in the IP domain, evaluating the predominance of researchers/groups, application contexts, legal frameworks, upper-level ontologies, conceptual coverage, representation languages, and adopted formalisms. The analysis reveals core conceptual elements, including IP rights, agents, events, conditions, agreements, and works of mind, which define the dynamics of IP life cycles. We identified a greater focus of the existing ontologies on Copyright when contrasted with aspects of Industrial Property. More ontologies addressed general legal frameworks rather than country-specific regulations. Additionally, the development of IP ontologies remains concentrated in a limited number of countries and research groups, indicating the need for broader collaboration. Many ontologies prioritize implementation aspects over conceptual clarity, potentially affecting interoperability. Despite these challenges, IP ontologies play a crucial role in supporting standardization, legal compliance, and data integration. The findings emphasize, among others, the importance of refining conceptual models, promoting harmonization to enhance semantic interoperability.
AristodemouL.TietzeF. (2018). The state-of-the-art on Intellectual Property Analytics (IPA): A literature review on artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning methods for analysing intellectual property (IP) data. World Patent Information, 55, 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2018.07.002
2.
Barba-GonzálezC.CaballeroI.Varela-VacaÁ. J.Cruz-LemusJ. A.Gómez-LópezM. T.Navas-DelgadoI. (2024). BIGOWL4DQ: Ontology-driven approach for big data quality meta-modelling, selection and reasoning. Information and Software Technology2, 167, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107378
3.
BernasconiA.GuizzardiG.PastorO.StoreyV. C. (2022). Semantic interoperability: Ontological unpacking of a viral conceptual model. BMC Bioinformatics, 23, 491. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-022-05022-0
BrewsterC.NouwtB.RaaijmakersS.VerhooselJ. (2020). Ontology-based access control for FAIR data. Data Intelligence, 2(1-2), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00029
6.
CallahanA.Cruz-ToledoJ.DumontierM. (2023). Ontology-based querying with bio2RDF’s linked open data. J2ournal of Biomedical Semantics, 4(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-4-S1-S1
7.
CeveniniC.ContissaG.LaukyteM.RiveretR.RubinoR. (2008). Development of the ALIS IP ontology: Merging legal and technical perspectives. In The international federation for onformation processing (pp. 169–180). Springer.
8.
ChiY. C.WangH. C.TengY. M. (2016). A framework for semantic web of patent information. In The eighth international conference on advances in databases, lnowledge, and data applications.
9.
ConfalonieriR.GuizzardiG. (2023). On the multiple roles of ontologies in explainable AI. Neurosymbolic AI Journal, 1, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3233/NAI-240754
10.
DelgadoJ.GallegoI.LlorenteS.GarcíaR. (2003a). IPROnto: An ontology for digital rights management. In The sixteenth annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems, JURIX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
11.
DelgadoJ.GallegoI.LlorenteS.GarcíaR. (2003b). Regulatory ontologies: An intellectual property rights approach. In Lecture notes in computer science.
FalboR. d. A.BarcellosM. P.NardiJ. C.GuizzardiG. (2013). Organizing ontology design patterns as ontology pattern languages. In 10th extended semantic web conference (ESWC 2013), Montpellier, France.
21.
FalboR. d. A.GuizzardiG.GangemiA.PresuttiV. (2013). Ontology patterns: Clarifying concepts and terminology. In 4th workshop on ontology patterns (WOP2013), Sydney, Australia.
22.
GangemiA.GuarinoN.MasoloC.OltramariA.SchneiderL. (2002). Sweetening ontologies with dolce. In A. Gómez-Pérez, & V. R. Benjamins (Eds.), Knowledge engineering and knowledge management: Ontologies and the semantic web (pp. 166–181). Springer.https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45810-7_18
GarcíaR.GilR. (2006). An OWL copyright ontology for semantic digital rights management. In Lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics (pp. 1745–1754).
25.
GarcíaR.GilR.DelgadoJ. (2007). A web ontologies framework for digital rights management. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 15, 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-007-9032-6
26.
GierethM.KochS.KompatsiarisY.PapadopoulosS.PiantaE.SerafiniL.WannerL. (2007). A modular framework for ontology-based representation of patent information. In Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and applications (pp. 49–58).
Gonzalez-PerezC.Henderson-SellersB.McBrideT.LowG.LarruceaX. (2016). An ontology for iso software engineering standards: 2) proof of concept and application. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 48, 112–123, Special Issue on Information System in Distributed Environment. 10.1016/j.csi.2016.04.007
29.
GuarinoN. (1998). Formal ontology and information systems. In Formal ontology and information systems (Vol. 3, pp. 3–15). http://www.fois.org
30.
GuarinoN.GuizzardiG. (2015). We need to discuss the relationship: Revisiting relationships as modeling constructs. In 27th international conference on advance information systems engineering (CAISE 2015), Stockholm, Sweden.
31.
GuizzardiG. (2005). Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models [PhD thesis]. University of Twente.
32.
GuizzardiG. (2007). On ontology, ontologies, conceptualizations, modeling languages, and (meta) models. In O. Vasilecas, J. Edler, & A. Caplinskas (Eds.), Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, databases and information systems IV (Vol. 15, pp. 18–39). IOS Press.
GuizzardiG.FonsecaC.AlmeidaJ.SalesT.BenevidesA.PorelloD. (2021). Types and taxonomic structures in conceptual modeling: A novel ontological theory and engineering support. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 134, 101891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2021.101891
35.
GuizzardiG.GuarinoN. (2023). Semantics, ontology and explanation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2024.102325
HassanM. M.ZaveriA.LehmannJ. (2018). A linked open data representation of patents registered in the US from 2005–2017. Scientific Data, 5, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.279
38.
HoekstraR.BreukerJ.BelloM. D.BoerA. (2007). The LKIF core ontology of basic legal concepts. In 2nd workshop on legal ontologies and Artificial Intelligence rechniques, Stanford, CA, USA.
39.
HoekstraR.BreukerJ.BelloM. D.BoerA. (2009). Lkif core: Principled ontology development for the legal domain. In Law, ontologies and the semantic web. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:9134557
ISO/IEC. (2010). ISO/IEC 21000-19:2010 information technology—multimedia framework (MPEG-21)—Part 19: Media value chain ontology. Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.iso.org/standard/52887.html
42.
ISO/IEC. (2017). ISO/IEC 21000-21:2017 information technology—Multimedia framework (MPEG-21)—Part 21: Media contract ontology. https://www.iso.org/standard/69299.html.
43.
ISO/IEC. (2018). ISO/IEC 21000-19:2010/Amd 1:2018 information technology—Multimedia framework (MPEG-21)—Part 19: Media value chain ontology—Amendment 1: Extensions on time-segments and multi-track audio. https://www.iso.org/standard/71978.html
44.
JudithP. D. (1991). A conceptual, case-relation representation of text for intelligent retrieval [PhD thesis]. University of Toronto.
45.
JuniorP. S. S.BarcellosM. P.FalboR. D. A.AlmeidaJ. P. A. (2021). From a scrum reference ontology to the integration of applications for data-driven software developmen. Information and Software Technology, 136, 106570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106570
46.
KitchenhamB.ChartersS. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering (Version 2.3) [EBSE Tech. Rep. EBSE-2007-01]. Keele University and University of Durham.
47.
KoepsellD. R. (2000). The ontology of cyberspace: Philosophy, law, and the future of intellectual property. Open Court.
KudumakisP.WilmeringT.SandlerM.Rodríguez-DoncelV.BochL.DelgadoJ. (2020). The challenge: From MPEG intellectual property rights ontologies to smart contracts and blockchains. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 37(2), 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2019.2955207
50.
LiG.-K. J.TrappeyC. V.TrappeyA. J.LiA. A. (2022). Ontology-based knowledge representation and semantic topic modeling for intelligent trademark legal precedent research. World Patent Information, 68, 102098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2022.102098
MergesR. P. (2017). What kind of rights are intellectual property rights? In R. C. Dreyfuss, & J Pila (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of intellectual property law. Oxford University Press. Publicado online em outubro de 2017; capítulo disponível sob Oxford Handbooks Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198758457.013.8
53.
MizoguchiR. (2009). Yet another top-level ontology: YATO. In Proceedings of the second interdisciplinary ontology meeting (pp. 91–101).
NardiJ. C.FalboR. d. A.AlmeidaJ. P. A. (2013). A Panorama of the semantic EAI initiatives and the adoption of ontologies by these initiatives. In International IFIP working conference on enterprise interoperability (IWEI 2013), Enschede, The Netherlands.
57.
PascazioL.RihmS.NaseriA.MosbachS.AkroydJ.KraftM. (2023). Chemical species ontology for data integration and knowledge discovery. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 63(21), 6569–6586. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.3c00820
PeukertA. (2021). A critique of the ontology of intellectual property law. Cambridge University Press.
60.
RobsonB.BaekO. (2023). An ontology for very large numbers of longitudinal health records to facilitate data mining and machine learning. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked, 38, 101204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imu.2023.101204
61.
RodríguezV.GauvinM.DelgadoJ. (2007). An ontology for the expression of intellectual property entities and relations. In 5th international workshop on security in information systems, WOSIS, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal.
62.
Rodríguez-DoncelV.DelgadoJ.LlorenteS.RodríguezE.BochL. (2015). Overview of the MPEG-21 media contract ontology. Semantic Web – Interoperability, Usability, Applicability, 6(3), 265–288. https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-160215
63.
RuyF.FalboR. d. A.BarcellosM. P.GuizzardiG.QuirinoG. (2015). An ISO-based software process ontology pattern language and its application for harmonizing standards. Applied Computing Review, 15, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/2815169.2815172
64.
SahooS. S.TurnerM. D.WangL.AmbiteJ. L.AppajiA.RajasekarA.LanderH. M.WangY.TurnerJ. A. (2023). NeuroBridge ontology: Computable provenance metadata to give the long tail of neuroimaging data a FAIR chance for secondary use. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2023.1216443
65.
SaricaS.LuoJ.WoodK. L. (2020). TechNet: Technology semantic network based on patent data. Expert Systems with Applications, 142, 112995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112995
SearleJ. R. (1998). Mind, language and society: Philosophy in the real world. Basic Books.
68.
SmithB. (1988). Practices of art. In J. C. Nyíri & B. Smith (Eds.), Practical knowledge: Outlines of a theory of traditions and skills (pp. 172–209). Croom Helm.
69.
SowaJ. F. (2000). Knowledge representation. Logical, Philosophical and Computational Foundations. Brooks Cole Publishing Co.
TaduriS.LauG. T.LawK. H.YuH.KesanJ. P. (2011). Developing an ontology for the U.S. patent system. In ACM international conference oroceeding series (pp. 157–166).
72.
TaduriS.LauG. T.LawK. H.YuH.KesanJ. P. (2015). An ontology to integrate multiple information domains in the patent system. In International symposium on technology and society.
73.
TrappeyA. J.WeiA. Y.ChenN. K.LiK. -A.HungL.TrappeyC. V. (2023). Patent landscape and key technology interaction roadmap using graph convolutional network – Case of mobile communicationtechnologies beyond 5G. Journal of Informetrics, 17, 101354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101354
74.
TrappeyA. J. C.TrappeyC. V.ChangA.-C. (2020). Intelligent extraction of a knowledge ontology from global patents: The case of smart retailing technology mining. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 16(4), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSWIS.2020100104
75.
WannerL.BrügmannS.DialloB.GierethM.KompatsiarisY.PiantaE.RaoG.SchoesterP.ZervakiV. (2006). PATExpert: Semantic processing of patent documentation. In CEUR workshop proceedings (pp. 51–52).
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2013). Glossary of terms concerning industrial property information and documentation. In Handbook on intellectual property information and documentation. https://www.wipo.int/standards/en/handbook.html
78.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2016a). Understanding copyright and related rights [Technical Report]. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Geneva, Switzerland.
79.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2016b). Understanding industrial property [Technical Report]. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Geneva, Switzerland.
80.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2019). Committee on WIPO standards (CWS) [Technical Report CWS/7/29]. World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
81.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2020a). Proposal for a new standard on web API -- Committee on WIPO standards [Technical Report]. World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
82.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2020b). What is intellectual property? [Technical Report]. World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
83.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2022). World intellectual property indicators 2022 [Technical Report]. Geneva.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2024b). WIPO strategy on standard essential patents 2024–2026 [Technical Report]. World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
86.
ZhangX. M.LiuQ.WangH. Q. (2012). Ontologies for intellectual property rights protection. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 1388–1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.021
