Toward a Realizable-Centered Approach to Artifacts in Applied Ontology

Abstract

We provide a theoretical foundation for a formal ontology of artifacts based on the notion of a realizable entity: a property that can be realized in associated processes of a specific correlated type in which the bearer participates. This realizable-centered approach to artifacts aims to accommodate a wide range of artifacts, from technical artifacts (e.g., screwdrivers) to artworks (including ready-made artworks) and spiritual artifacts (e.g., amulets), making it applicable across diverse fields such as engineering, art, anthropology and archeology. It is motivated by limitations of function-based accounts of artifacts and the needs for a meticulous analysis of their intentional dimension. To articulate various usages of the term “artifact,” we introduce two key notions: canonical artifact (an entity intentionally produced for a specific purpose) and usefact (an entity intended to be used for some accidental purpose). We provide a realizable-based characterization of both, classifying intentions as a subtype of realizable entities. We argue that our realizable-centered approach is more general than three prominent function-based theories of artifacts: designer-based, etiological and systemic. We further demonstrate that our framework can be adapted to Basic Formal Ontology (BFO), highlighting its flexibility and broad applicability.

Keywords

artifact realizable entity intention function Basic Formal Ontology (BFO)

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abell

(2012). Art: What it is and why it matters. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85(3), 671–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2011.00498.x

Almeida

Costa

(2021). Ontoandalus: An ontology of Islamic artefacts for terminological purposes. Semantic Web, 12(2), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-20038

Almeida

J. P. A.

Falbo

R. A.

Guizzardi

(2019). Events as entities in ontology-driven conceptual modeling. In Laender

A. H. F.

Pernici

Lim

E.-P.

de Oliveira

J. P. M.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th international conference on conceptual modeling (ER 2019), salvador, Brazil, November 4–7, 2019. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 11788, pp. 469–483). Springer.

Ardisson

Dikmen

Moltmann

Müller

(2025). The role of plans for qua-events and their effects on part-structure. In Sales

T. P.

Masolo

Keet

C. E.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2025), online, September 4 and Catania, Italy, September 10–12, 2025 (pp. 79–93). IOS Press.

Arp

Smith

Spear

A. D.

(2015). Building ontologies with basic formal ontology. MIT Press.

Artiga

(2011). Re-organizing organizational accounts of function. Applied Ontology, 6(2), 105–124. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2011-0091

Artiga

(2016). New perspectives on artifactual and biological functions. Applied Ontology, 11(2), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-160166

Austin

C. J.

Marmodoro

Roselli

, (Eds.) (2024). Powers, parts and wholes: Essays on the mereology of powers. Routledge.

Bahr

(2019). What the Mona Lisa and a screwdriver have in common. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 96(1), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-000057

10.

Baker

L. R.

(2007). The metaphysics of everyday life: An essay in practical realism. Cambridge University Press.

11.

Baker

L. R.

(2009). The metaphysics of malfunction. Techné, 13(2), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.5840/techne20091328

12.

Barton

Duncan

Toyoshima

Ethier

J.-F.

(2018a). First steps towards an ontology of belief. In Jansen

Radicioni

D. P.

Gromann

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2018), Cape Town, South Africa, September 17–18, 2018. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 2205, pp. 1–5).

13.

Barton

Grenier

Ethier

J.-F.

(2018b). The identity and mereology of pathological dispositions. In Cooper

Jaiswal

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference on biological ontology (ICBO 2018), Corvallis, Oregon, U.S., August 7–10, 2018. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 2285, pp. 1–6).

14.

Barton

Grenier

Jansen

Ethier

J.-F.

(2018c). The identity of dispositions. In Borgo

Hitzler

Kutz

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference of formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2018), Cape Town, South Africa, September 17–21, 2018 (pp. 113–126). IOS Press.

15.

Barton

Jansen

Ethier

J.-F.

(2017). A taxonomy of disposition-parthood. In Galton

Neuhaus

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2017), bozen-bolzano, Italy, September 21–23, 2017. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 2050, pp. 1–10).

16.

Barton

Vieu

Ethier

J.-F.

(2019). Directing actions. In Barton

Seppälä

Porello

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2019), graz, Austria, September 23–25, 2019. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 2518, pp. 1–10).

17.

Bateman

J. A.

(2019). Ontology, language, meaning: Semiotic steps beyond the information artifact. In Borgo

Ferrario

Masolo

Vieu

(Eds.), Ontology makes sense: Essays in honor of Nicola Guarino (pp. 119–135). IOS Press.

18.

Begley

(2024). Towards a realist metaphysics of software maintenance. In Young

M. T.

Coeckelbergh

(Eds.), Maintenance and philosophy of technology: Keeping things going (pp. 162–183). Routledge.

19.

Bekiari

Bruseker

Canning

Michon

Doerr

Ore

C.-E.

Stead

Velios

(2024). Definition of the CIDOC conceptual reference model v7.3 (Version v7.3). The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model Special Interest Group.

20.

Ben Abbès

Scheuermann

Meilender

D’Aquin

(2012). Characterizing modular ontologies. In Donnelly

Guizzardi

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference of formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2012), Graz, Austria, July 24–27, 2012 (pp. 13–25). IOS Press.

21.

Beretta

(2021). A challenge for historical research: Making data FAIR using a collaborative ontology management environment (OntoME). Semantic Web, 12(2), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-200416

22.

Beverley

Limbaugh

Merrell

Koch

P. M.

Smith

(2024). Capabilities: An ontology. In Oliveira

Barcelos

P. P. F.

Calhau

Fonseca

C. M.

Righetti

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2024), Enschede, Netherlands, July 15–19, 2024. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 3882, pp. 1–14).

23.

Biccheri

Ferrario

Porello

(2020). Needs and intentionality—An ontological analysis and an application to public services. In Brodaric

Neuhaus

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2020) (pp. 125–139). IOS Press.

24.

Borgo

Carrara

Vermaas

Garbacz

(2006). Behavior of a technical artifact: An ontological perspective in engineering. In Bennett

Fellbaum

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2006), Baltimore, Maryland, USA, November 9–11, 2006 (pp. 214–225). IOS Press.

25.

Borgo

Ferrario

Gangemi

Guarino

Masolo

Porello

Sanfilippo

E. M.

Vieu

(2022). DOLCE: A descriptive ontology for linguistic and cognitive engineering. Applied Ontology, 17(1), 45–69. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-210259

26.

Borgo

Franssen

Garbacz

Kitamura

Mizoguchi

Vermaas

P. E.

(2014a). Technical artifact: An integrated perspective. Applied Ontology, 9(3–4), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-140137

27.

Borgo

Masolo

(2010). Ontological foundations of DOLCE. In Poli

Healy

Kameas

A. D.

(Eds.), Theory and applications of ontology: Computer applications (pp. 279–295). Springer.

28.

Borgo

Mizoguchi

Kitamura

(2016). Formalizing and adapting a general function module for foundational ontologies. In Ferrario

Kuhn

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2016), Annecy, France, July 6–9, 2016 (pp. 241–254). IOS Press.

29.

Borgo

Porello

Troquard

(2014b). Logical operators for ontological modeling. In Garbacz

Kutz

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2014), Rio de Janerio, Brazil, September 22–25, 2014 (pp. 23–36). IOS Press.

30.

Borgo

Sanfilippo

E. M.

Terkaj

(2021). Capabilities, capacities, and functionalities of resources in industrial engineering. In Sanfilippo

E. M.

Kutz

Troquard

Hahmann

Masolo

Hoehndorf

Vita

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2021), Bolzano, Italy, September 11–18, 2021. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 2969, pp. 1–12).

31.

Borgo

Vieu

(2009). Artefacts in formal ontology. In Meijers

(Ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of science. Handbook of philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (Vol. 9, pp. 273–307). Elsevier.

32.

Brodaric

Grüninger

(2018). Particular types and particular dependence. In Borgo

Hitzler

Kutz

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2018), Cape Town, South Africa, September 17–21, 2018 (pp. 19–32). IOS Press.

33.

Bruseker

Carboni

Guillem

(2017). Cultural heritage data management: The role of formal ontology and CIDOC CRM. In Vincent

M. L.

López-Menchero Bendicho

V. M.

Ioannides

Levy

T. E.

(Eds.), Heritage and archaeology in the digital age: Acquisition, curation, and dissemination of spatial cultural heritage data. Quantitative methods in the humanities and social sciences (pp. 93–131). Springer.

34.

Burek

(2006). Ontology of functions: A domain-independent framework for modeling functions. [Ph. D. Thesis] University of Leipzig, Germany. https://www.onto-med.de/sites/www.onto-med.de/files/files/uploads/Publications/2007/burek-p-2007-a.pdf. (Last accessed on April 3, 2026).

35.

Burek

Loebe

Herre

(2016). Fuel: Representing function structure and function dependencies with a UML profile for function modeling. Applied Ontology, 11(2), 155–203. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-160167

36.

Cardinal

J. S.

(2019). Sets, graphs, and things we can see: A formal combinatorial ontology for empirical intra-site analysis. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 2(1), 56–78. https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.16

37.

Carrara

Garbacz

Vermaas

P. E.

(2011). If engineering function is a family resemblance concept: Assessing three formalization strategies. Applied Ontology, 6(2), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2011-0090

38.

Ceusters

Ruttenberg

(2025). Towards representing change in the BFO. In Sales

T. P.

Masolo

Keet

C. E.

39.

Ceusters

Smith

(2015). Aboutness: Towards foundations for the information artifact ontology. In Couto

F. M.

Hastings

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on biomedical ontology (ICBO 2015), Lisbon, Portugal, July 27–30, 2015, CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 1515, pp. 1–5).

40.

Colburn

T. R.

(1999). Software, abstraction, and ontology. The Monist, 82(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist19998215

41.

Compagno

(2025). Modelling of functions and malfunctions in industrial processes: An applied ontology approach. [Ph. D. Thesis] University of Trento, Italy, 2025. https://hdl.handle.net/11572/450850. (Last accessed on April 3, 2026).

42.

Compagno

Borgo

(2024a). Ontological analysis of malfunctions: Some formal considerations. In Trojahn

Porello

Barcelos

P. P. F.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2024), online, July 8–9 and Enschede, Netherlands, July 15–19, 2024 (pp. 149–162). IOS Press.

43.

Compagno

Borgo

(2024b). Towards a formal ontology of engineering functions, behaviours, and capabilities. Semantic Web, 15(2), 285–318. https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-223188

44.

Compagno

Borgo

Sanfilippo

E. M.

Terkaj

(2023). Manufacturing resources, capabilities, and engineering functions: Towards an ontology-based integration. In Aussenac-Gilles

Hahmann

Galton

Hedblom

M. M.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2023), Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada, July 17–20 and online, September 18–20, 2023 (pp. 272–287). IOS Press.

45.

Cosentino

(2021). Artifacts and affordances. Synthese, 198(suppl 17), 4007–4026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02297-4

46.

Cummins

(1975). Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy, 72(20), 741–765. https://doi.org/10.2307/2024640

47.

Currie

(1989). An ontology of art. Palgrave.

48.

Dallas

(2009). From artefact typologies to cultural heritage ontologies: Or, an account of the lasting impact of archaeological computing. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 20, 205–222.

49.

Davidson

(1969). The individuation of events. In Rescher

(Ed.), Essays in honor of Carl G. Hempel (pp. 216–234). Reidel.

50.

Davies

(2024). An ontology of multiple artworks. Oxford University Press.

51.

de Haas

Houkes

(2025). Can’t software malfunction? Metaphysics, 9(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5334/met.165

52.

Dickie

(1969). Defining art. American Philosophical Quarterly, 6(3), 253–256.

53.

Dipert

R. R.

(1993). Artifacts, art works, and agency. Temple University Press.

54.

Dodd

(2000). Musical works as eternal types. British Journal of Aesthetics, 40(4), 424–440. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjaesthetics/40.4.424

55.

Donnelly

(2005). Relative places. Applied Ontology, 1(1), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/APO-2005-000001

56.

Dooley

D. M.

Griffiths

E. J.

Gosal

G. S.

Buttigieg

P. L.

Hoehndorf

Lange

M. C.

Schriml

L. M.

Brinkman

F. S. L.

Hsiao

W. W. L.

(2018). Foodon: A harmonized food ontology to increase global food traceability, quality control and data integration. NPJ Science of Food, 2, 23. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-018-0032-6

57.

Dowland

S. C.

Smith

Diller

M. A.

Landgrebe

Hogan

W. R.

(2023). Ontology of language, with applications to demographic data. Applied Ontology, 18(3), 239–262. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-230049

58.

Drobnjakovic

Kulvatunyou

B(S)

Ameri

Will

Smith

Jones

(2022). The industrial ontologies foundry (IOF) core ontology. In Sanfilippo

E. M.

Karray

M.-H.

Kyritsis

Sarkar

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th international workshop on formal ontologies meet industry (FOMI 2022), Tarbes, France, September 12–15, 2022. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 3240, pp. 1–13).

59.

Duncan

W. D.

(2017). Ontological distinctions between hardware and software. Applied Ontology, 12(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-170175

60.

Duncan

W. D.

Diller

Dooley

Hogan

W. R.

Beverley

(2024). Concretizing plan specifications as realizables within the OBO foundry. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 15(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-024-00315-0

61.

Eden

A. H.

Turner

(2007). Problems in the ontology of computer programs. Applied Ontology, 2(1), 13–36. https://doi.org/10.3233/APO-2007-026

62.

Evnine

S. J.

(2013). Ready-mades: Ontology and aesthetics. British Journal of Aesthetics, 53(4), 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayt033

63.

Evnine

S. J.

(2022). The historicity of artifacts: Use and counter-use. Metaphysics, 5(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5334/met.74

64.

Evnine

S. J.

(2025). The curated artifact: The case of languages. Synthese, 205, 131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-025-04960-5

65.

Falguera

J. L.

Martínez-Vidal

, (Eds.). (2020). Abstract objects: For and against (synthese library: Volume 422). Springer.

66.

Ferrario

Oltramari

(2004). Towards a computational ontology of mind. In Varzi

Vieu

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2004), Torino, Italy November 4–6, 2004 (pp. 287–297). IOS Press.

67.

Ferreira Ruiz

Hundertmark

(2024). What are the causal bases of dispositions? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 103(3), 814–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2024.2408689

68.

Fiegenbaum

(2024). Toward a formalization of artifacts in GFO. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13452v1.

69.

Floridi

Fresco

Primiero

(2015). On malfunctioning software. Synthese, 192, 1199–1220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0610-3

70.

Franda

Souman

(2025). Why art cannot (technically) malfunction. Synthese, 206, 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-025-05086-4

71.

Friedel

(2021). Creating abstract objects. Philosophy Compass, 16(10), e12783. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12783

72.

Garbacz

(2013). Artefacts and family resemblance. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(3), 419–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-013-0145-4

73.

Garbacz

(2016). A formal ontology of texts. In Ferrario

Kuhn

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2016), Annecy, France, July 6–9, 2016 (pp. 345–358). IOS Press.

74.

Garbacz

(2022). A new perspective on criteria of identity. Synthese, 200(476). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03954-x

75.

Garbacz

(2023). A quest for identity criteria in computational ontologies. In Aussenac-Gilles

Hahmann

Galton

Hedblom

M. M.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2023), sherbrooke, Québec, Canada, July 17–20 and online, September 18–20, 2023 (pp. 169–181). IOS Press.

76.

Gardner

S. P.

(2005). Ontologies and semantic data integration. Drug Discovery Today, 10(14), 1001–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6446(05)03504-X

77.

Grünbaum

(2008). Trying and the arguments from total failure. Philosophia, 36(1), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-007-9096-2

78.

Grüninger

Chui

Thai

(2020). A mereology for connected structures. In Brodaric

Neuhaus

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2020) (pp. 171–185). IOS Press.

79.

Grüninger

Katsumi

(2019). Foundationless ontologies. In Barton

Seppälä

Porello

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2019), Graz, Austria, September 23–25, 2019. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 2518, pp. 1–10).

80.

Guarino

Baratella

Guizzardi

(2022). Events, their names, and their synchronic structure. Applied Ontology, 17(2), 249–283. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-220261

81.

Guizzardi

(2005). Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. PhD thesis, University of Twente, Netherlands. Available online at https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/ontological-foundations-for-structural-conceptualmodels. (Last accessed on April 3, 2026).

82.

Guizzardi

Botti Benevides

Fonseca

C. M.

Porello

Almeida

J. P. A.

Prince Sales

(2022). UFO: Unified foundational ontology. Applied Ontology, 17(1), 167–210. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-210256

83.

Guizzardi

Guarino

Almeida

J. P. A.

(2016). Ontological considerations about the representation of events and endurants in business models. In La Rosa

Loos

Pastor

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th international conference on business process management (BPM 2016), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, September 18–22, 2016. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 9850, pp. 20–36). Springer.

84.

Guizzardi

Wagner

de Almeida Falbo

Guizzardi

R. S. S.

Almeida

J. P. A.

(2013). Towards ontological foundations for the conceptual modeling of events. In Ng

Storey

V. C.

Trujillo

J. C.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd international conference on conceptual modeling (ER 2013), Hong-Kong, China, November 11–13, 2018. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 8217, pp. 327–341). Springer.

85.

Güngör

(2023). Artifact concept pluralism. Dialectica, 77(2), 123–151. https://doi.org/10.48106/dial.v77.i2.01

86.

Güngör

(2026). Artworks, functions, and pluralism about ‘artifact’. Erkenntnis, 91, 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-024-00889-2

87.

Hacıgüzeller

Taylor

J. S.

Perry

(2021). On the emerging supremacy of structured digital data in archaeology: A preliminary assessment of information, knowledge and wisdom left behind. Open Archaeology, 7(1), 1709–1730. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2020-0220

88.

Herre

Heller

Burek

Hoehndorf

Loebe

Michalek

(2007). General Formal Ontology (GFO)—A foundational ontology integrating objects and processes (Part I: Basic Principles) [Version 1.0.1]. Technical report, Research Group Ontologies in Medicine (Onto-Med), Institute of Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, University of Leipzig.

89.

Hick

D. H.

(2019). Using things as art. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 96(1), 56–80. https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-000060

90.

Hilpinen

(1992). Artifacts and works of art. Theoria, 58(1), 58–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1992.tb01155.x

91.

Hobbs

Gordon

(2010). Goals in a formal theory of commonsense psychology. In Galton

Mizoguchi

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2010), Toronto, Canada, May 11–14, 2010 (pp. 59–72). IOS Press.

92.

Holm

(2017). The problem of phantom functions. Erkenntnis, 82(1), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-016-9814-x

93.

Hornsby

(1980). Actions. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

94.

Houkes

Vermaas

P. E.

(2009a). Contemporary engineering and the metaphysics of artefacts: Beyond the artisan model. Monist, 92(3), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist200992323

95.

Houkes

Vermaas

P. E.

(2009b). Produced to use: Combining two key intuitions on the nature of artefacts. Techné, 13(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.5840/techne200913211

96.

Houkes

Vermaas

P. E.

(2010). Technical functions: On the use and design of artefacts. Springer.

97.

Houkes

Vermaas

P. E.

(2014). On what is made: Instruments, products and natural kinds of artefacts. In Franssen

Kroes

Reydon

T. A. C.

Vermaas

P. E.

(Eds.), Artefact kinds: Ontology and the human-made world (pp. 167–190). Springer.

98.

Huggett

(2018). Reuse remix recycle: Repurposing archaeological digital data. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 6(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2018.1

99.

Hurshman

(2024). Do opaque algorithms have functions? Synthese, 204(91). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-024-04745-2

100.

Ingthorsson

R. D.

(2021). A powerful particulars view of causation. Routledge.

101.

Irmak

(2012). Software is an abstract artifact. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 86(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401209182_005

102.

Irmak

(2019). An ontology of words. Erkenntnis, 84(5), 1139–1158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-018-0001-0

103.

Irmak

(2021). The problem of creation and abstract artifacts. Synthese, 198, 9695–9708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02672-6

104.

Irmak

(2024a). Artifacts without authors: Generative artificial intelligence and the question of authorship. Metaphysics, 7(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5334/met.160

105.

Irmak

(2024b). The mess we make: On the metaphysics of artifact kinds. Erkenntnis, 90, 2003–2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-024-00789-5

106.

Jansen

(2013). Artefact kinds need not be kinds of artefacts. In Svennerlind

Jan

Ingthorsson

(Eds.), Johanssonian investigations: Essays in honour of Ingvar Johansson on his seventieth birthday (pp. 317–337). Ontos Verlag.

107.

Jansen

(2018). Functions, malfunctioning, and negative causation. In Christian

Hommen

Retzlaff

Schurz

(Eds.), Philosophy of science. European studies in philosophy of science (Vol. 9, pp. 117–135). Springer.

108.

Jenkins

C. S.

Nolan

(2012). Disposition impossible. Noûs, 46(4), 732–753. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2011.00831.x

109.

Jensen

De Colle

Kindya

Cox

Beverley

(2024). The common core ontologies. In Trojahn

Porello

Barcelos

P. P. F.

110.

Jespersen

Carrara

(2011). Two conceptions of technical malfunction. Theoria, 77(2), 117–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.2010.01092.x

111.

Jespersen

Carrara

(2013). A new logic of technical malfunction. Studia Logica, 101(3), 547–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-012-9397-8

112.

Juvshik

(2021a). Artifactualization without physical modification. Res Philosophica, 98(4), 545–572. https://doi.org/10.11612/resphil.2092

113.

Juvshik

(2021b). Function essentialism about artifacts. Philosophical Studies, 178, 2943–2964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-020-01594-w

114.

Juvshik

(2025). What makes a kind an artifact kind? Synthese, 205, 66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-025-04914-x

115.

Karray

M. H.

Ameri

Hodkiewicz

Louge

(2019). ROMAIN: Towards a BFO compliant reference ontology for industrial maintenance. Applied Ontology, 14(2), 155–177. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-190208

116.

Kassel

(2010). A formal ontology of artefacts. Applied Ontology, 5(3–4), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2010-0078

117.

Kassel

(2023). A plea for epistemic ontologies. Applied Ontology, 18(4), 367–397. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-230031

118.

Keet

C. M.

(2020). The computer program as a functional whole. In Brodaric

Neuhaus

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2020) (pp. 216–230). IOS Press.

119.

Khan

Z. C.

Keet

C. M.

(2015). An empirically-based framework for ontology modularisation. Applied Ontology, 10(3–4), 171–195. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-150151

120.

Kipfer

B. A.

(2021). Encyclopedic dictionary of archaeology. Springer.

121.

Kitamura

Mizoguchi

(2010). Characterizing functions based on ontological models from an engineering point of view. In Galton

Mizoguchi

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2010), Toronto, Canada, May 11–14, 2010 (pp. 301–314). IOS Press.

122.

Koslicki

(2008). The structure of objects. Oxford University Press.

123.

Koslicki

(2018). Form, matter and substance. Oxford University Press.

124.

Koslicki

(2023). Artifacts and the limits of agentive authority. In Garcia-Godinez

(Ed.), Thomasson on ontology (pp. 209–241). Springer Verlag.

125.

Koslicki

Massin

(2025). Artifact-functions: A capacity-based approach. In García-Encinas

M. J.

Martínez-Manrique

(Eds.), Special objects: Social, fictional, modal, and non-existent (pp. 31–52). Springer.

126.

Koslicki

Massin

(in press). Artifact kinds, functions, and capacities. American Philosophical Quarterly.

127.

Loebe

Burek

Herre

(2022). GFO: The general formal ontology. Applied Ontology, 17(1), 71–106. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-220264

128.

Lombardo

Karatas

Gulmini

Guidorzi

Angelici

(2022). Transdisciplinary approach to archaeological investigations in a semantic web perspective. Semantic Web, 14(2), 361–383. https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-223016

129.

Loughmiller-Cardinal

J. A.

Cardinal

J. S.

(2020). Use, purpose, and function — letting the artifacts speak. Heritage, 3(3), 587–605. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage3030034

130.

Machamer

Darden

Craver

C. F.

(2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1086/392759

131.

Masolo

Borgo

Gangemi

Guarino

Oltramari

(2003). Wonderweb deliverable D18—Ontology library (final). Laboratory for Applied Ontology, National Research Council, Institute of Cognitive Science and Technology. Available online at http://wonderweb.man.ac.uk/deliverables/D18.shtml. (Last accessed on April 3, 2026).

132.

Masolo

Sanfilippo

E. M.

(2020). Technical artefact theories: A comparative study and a new empirical approach. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 11(4), 831–858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-020-00475-9

133.

Masolo

Sanfilippo

E. M.

Bottazzi

Ferrario

Mosca

Vilardo

M. M.

(2025). An observational approach to representing interpretation. Applied Ontology, 20(4), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/15705838251391711

134.

Masolo

Vieu

Ferrario

Borgo

Porello

(2020). Pluralities, collectives, and composites. In Brodaric

Neuhaus

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2020) (pp. 186–200). IOS Press.

135.

McCann

(1975). Trying, paralysis, and volition. Review of Metaphysics, 28(3), 423–442.

136.

McKitrick

(2003). A case for extrinsic dispositions. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 81(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/713659629

137.

McKitrick

(2018). Dispositional pluralism. Oxford University Press.

138.

McKitrick

(2024). The metaphysics of artificial dispositions. In Bauer

W. A.

Marmodoro

(Eds.), Artificial dispositions: Investigating ethical and metaphysical issues (pp. 37–58). Bloomsbury.

139.

Miettinen

(2018). The ontology of systems. In Laskey

K. B.

Wijesekera

(Eds.), Proceedings of the third international ontology for the intelligence community conference (OIC-2008), Fairfax, VA, USA, December 3–4, 2008. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 440, pp. 1–4).

140.

Mikalonytė

E. S.

(2023). Musical works are mind-independent artifacts. Synthese, 203(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04402-0

141.

Millikan

(1984). Language, thought, and other biological categories. MIT Press.

142.

Millikan

(1989). In defense of proper functions. Philosophy of Science, 56(2), 288–302. https://doi.org/10.1086/289488

143.

Mizoguchi

Borgo

(2021). The role of the systemic view in foundational ontologies. In Sanfilippo

E. M.

Kutz

Troquard

Hahmann

Masolo

Hoehndorf

Vita

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2021), Bolzano, Italy, September 11–18, 2021. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 2969, pp. 1–11).

144.

Mizoguchi

Borgo

(2022). Towards an ontology of representation. In Brodaric

Neuhaus

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2021), Bozen-Bolzano, Italy, September 13–17, 2021 (pp. 48–63). IOS Press.

145.

Mizoguchi

Borgo

(2025). An ontology of representation. Applied Ontology, 20(2), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/15705838251337943

146.

Mizoguchi

Kitamura

Borgo

(2016). A unifying definition for artifact and biological functions. Applied Ontology, 11(2), 129–154. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-160165

147.

Moltmann

(2013). Abstract objects and the semantics of natural language. Oxford University Press.

148.

Mumford

Anjum

R. L.

(2011). Getting causes from powers. Oxford University Press.

149.

Neander

(1991). Functions as selected effects: The conceptual analyst’s defense. Philosophy of Science, 58(2), 168–184. https://doi.org/10.1086/289610

150.

Neuhaus

(2026). Dispositions and roles of generically dependent entities. In Beverley

Keet

C. M.

Lamba

Lambrix

Tiwari

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2025). Catania, Italy, September 8–9, 2025. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 4176, pp. 1–9).

151.

Neuhaus

Hasting

(2022). Ontology development is consensus creation, not (merely) representation. Applied Ontology, 17(4), 495–513. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-220273

152.

Niccolucci

Sorin

Doerr

(2015). The formal logical foundations of archaeological ontologies. In Barceló

J. A.

Bogdanovic

(Eds.), Mathematics and archaeology (pp. 86–99). CRC Press.

153.

Nolan

(2015). Noncausal dispositions. Noûs, 49(3), 425–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12096

154.

Olivero

(2019). Function is not enough: An externalist defeat for artifactual and social kind terms. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 96(1), 105–129. https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-000061

155.

O’Shaughnessy

(1980). The will: A dual aspect theory (2 Vols.). Cambridge University Press.

156.

Oswalt

W. H.

(1973). Habitat and technology: The evolution of hunting. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

157.

Oswalt

W. H.

(1976). An anthropological analysis of food-getting technology. John Wiley & Sons.

158.

Otte

J. N.

Beverley

Ruttenberg

(2022). BFO: Basic formal ontology. Applied Ontology, 7(1), 17–43. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-220262

159.

Otte

J. N.

Kiritsi

Ali

M. M.

Yang

Zhang

Rudnicki

Rai

Smith

(2019). An ontological approach to representing the product life cycle. Applied Ontology, 14(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-190210

160.

Passinsky

(2024). Artifacts, artworks, and social objects. In Koslicki

Raven

M. J.

(Eds.), The routledge handbook of essence in philosophy (pp. 261–275). Routledge.

161.

Perez

G. D. J.

(2020). On the essence and ontology of systems. Open Science Journal, 5(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.23954/osj.v5i3.2510

162.

Piñeros Glasscock

J. S.

Tenenbaum

(2023). Action. In Zalta

E. N.

Nodelman

(Eds.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2023 Edition) . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/action/. (Last accessed on April 3, 2026).

163.

Porello

Terkaj

Vieu

Sanfilippo

E. M.

Compagno

(2025). Approximating DOLCE in OWL: The DOLCEbasic and DOLCEnaryRel core modules. Applied Ontology, 20(4), 298–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/15705838251401450

164.

Preston

(2013). A philosophy of material culture: Action, function, and mind. Routledge.

165.

Preston

(2022a). Artifact. In Zalta

E. N.

Nodelman

(Eds.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2022 Edition) . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/artifact/. (Last accessed on April 3, 2026).

166.

Preston

(2022b). The artifact problem: A category and its vicissitudes. Metaphysics, 5(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.5334/met.86

167.

Prior

E. W.

Pargetter

Jackson

(1982). Three theses about dispositions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 19(3), 251–257.

168.

Rabenberg

Benson

Donato

Huffman

Babcock

Beverley

(2024). Grounding realizable entities. In Duncan

W. D.

Hoehndorf

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th international conference on biological and biomedical ontology (ICBO 2024), Enschede, Netherlands, July 17–19, 2024. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 3939, pp. 1–13).

169.

Raven

M. J.

(2025). Dynamics of artefacts. Mind, fzaf037. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzaf037

170.

Reicher

M. E.

(2022). The primacy of abstract artifacts. In McNamara

Jones

A. J. I.

Brown

M. A.

(Eds.), Agency, norms, inquiry, and artifacts: Essays in honor of Risto Hilpinen, synthese library 454 (pp. 235–246). Springer.

171.

Roberts

(2024). A dispositional account of technical functions. Synthese, 204, 108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-024-04756-z

172.

Rodrigues

F. H.

(2023). A theory for ontological modeling of events based on systems. [Ph. D. Thesis] Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. http://hdl.handle.net/10183/263999. (Last accessed on April 3, 2026).

173.

Rodrigues

F. H.

Abel

(2019). What to consider about events: A survey on the ontology of occurrents. Applied Ontology, 14(4), 343–378. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-190217

174.

Röhl

(2012). Mechanisms in biomedical ontology. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 3(suppl 2), S9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-3-S2-S9

175.

Röhl

Jansen

(2011). Representing dispositions. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 2(suppl 4), S4. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-2-S4-S4

176.

Röhl

Jansen

(2014). Why functions are not special dispositions: An improved classification of realizables for top-level ontologies. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 5, 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-5-27

177.

Sanfilippo

E. M.

(2021). Ontologies for information entities: State of the art and open challenges. Applied Ontology, 16(2), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-210246

178.

Sanfilippo

E. M.

Markhoff

Pittet

(2020). Ontological analysis and modularization of CIDOC-CRM. In Brodaric

Neuhaus

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2020) (pp. 107–121). IOS Press.

179.

Sanfilippo

E. M.

Masolo

Borgo

Porello

(2016). Features and components in product models. In Ferrario

Kuhn

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2016), Annecy, France, July 6–9, 2016 (pp. 227–240). IOS Press.

180.

Sanfilippo

E. M.

Masolo

Bottazzi

Ferrario

(2024). Interpreting texts and their characters. In Trojahn

Porello

Barcelos

P. P. F.

181.

Scheuermann

R. H.

Ceusters

Smith

(2009). Toward an ontological treatment of disease and diagnosis. In Proceedings of the 2009 AMIA summit on translational bioinformatics (pp. 116–120). American Medical Informatics Association.

182.

Schulz

Jansen

(2018). Towards an ontology of religious and spiritual belief. In Borgo

Hitzler

Kutz

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference of formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2018), Cape Town, South Africa, September 17–21, 2018 (pp. 253–260). IOS Press.

183.

Searle

J. R.

(1995). The construction of social reality. The Free Press.

184.

Smith

Ameri

Cheong

Kiritsis

Sormaz

Will

Otte

J. N.

(2019). A first-order logic formalization of the industrial ontology foundry signature using basic formal ontology. In Barton

Seppälä

Porello

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2019), Graz, Austria, September 23–25, 2019. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 2518, pp. 1–12).

185.

Smith

Ceusters

(2010). Ontological realism: A methodology for coordinated evolution of scientific ontologies. Applied Ontology, 5(3–4), 139–188. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2010-0079

186.

Smith

Ceusters

Klagges

Köhler

Kumar

Lomax

Mungall

Neuhaus

Rector

A. L.

Rosse

(2005). Relations in biomedical ontologies. Genome Biology, 6(5), R46. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2005-6-5-r46

187.

Sowa

J. F.

(2015). Signs and reality. Applied Ontology, 10(3–4), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-150159

188.

Spear

A. D.

Ceusters

Smith

(2016). Functions in basic formal ontology. Applied Ontology, 11(2), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-160164

189.

Sperber

(2007). Seedless grapes: Nature and culture. In Margolis

Laurence

(Eds.), Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation (pp. 124–137). Oxford University Press.

190.

Stuchlik

(2013). From volitionalism to the dual aspect theory of action. Philosophia, 41(3), 867–886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-013-9414-9

191.

Terrone

(2023). Taking abstract artifacts seriously—The functioning and malfunctioning of fictional characters. Philosophies, 8(6), 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies8060105

192.

Terrone

(2024). Are works of art affective artifacts? If not, what sort of artifacts are they? Topoi, 43, 737–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-024-10045-8

193.

The Common Core Ontologies (CCO) Repository. (2024, November 6). GitHub. https://github.com/CommonCoreOntology/CommonCoreOntologies. (Last accessed on April 3, 2026).

194.

Thomasson

A. L.

(1999). Fiction and metaphysics. Cambridge University Press.

195.

Thomasson

A. L.

(2004). The ontology of art. In Kivy

(Ed.), The Blackwell guide to aesthetics (pp. 78–92). Blackwell.

196.

Thomasson

A. L.

(2006). Debate about the ontology of art: What are we doing here? Philosophy Compass, 1(3), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2006.00021.x

197.

Thomasson

A. L.

(2014). Public artifacts, intentions, and norms. In Franssen

Kroes

Reydon

T. A. C.

Vermaas

P. E.

(Eds.), Artefact kinds: Ontology and the human-made world (pp. 45–62). Springer.

198.

Toyoshima

(2020). Natural necessity: An introductory guide for ontologists. Applied Ontology, 15(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-190219

199.

Toyoshima

(2021). Roles and their three facets: A foundational perspective. Applied Ontology, 16(2), 161–192. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-210244

200.

Toyoshima

Barton

(2024a). Foundations for a realist ontology of mental representation. In Toyoshima

, et al. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2023), Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada, July 19–20, 2023. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 3637, pp. 1–8).

201.

Toyoshima

Barton

(2024b). Two approaches to the identity of processes in BFO. In Toyoshima

, et al. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2023), sherbrooke, Québec, Canada, July 19–20, 2023. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 3637, pp. 1–15).

202.

Toyoshima

Barton

Dooley

(2025). Two ontological approaches to food products. In Sales

T. P.

Masolo

Keet

C. E.

203.

Toyoshima

Barton

Ethier

J.-F.

(2022a). Affordances and their ontological core. Applied Ontology, 17(2), 285–320. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-220267

204.

Toyoshima

Barton

Ethier

J.-F.

(2022b). Investigating functions in BFO from the viewpoint of extrinsic dispositions. In Sales

T. P.

, et al. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2022), Jönköping, Sweden, August 15–19, 2022. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 3249, pp. 1–7).

205.

Toyoshima

Barton

Grenier

(2020). Foundations for an ontology of belief, desire and intention. In Brodaric

Neuhaus

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2020) (pp. 140–154). IOS Press.

206.

Toyoshima

Barton

Jansen

Ethier

J.-F.

(2022c). Towards a unified dispositional framework for realizable entities. In Brodaric

Neuhaus

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2021), Bozen-Bolzano, Italy, September 13–17, 2021 (pp. 64–78). IOS Press.

207.

Toyoshima

Barton

Koslicki

(2024b). Artifactual functions: A dual, realizable-based view. In Oliveira

Barcelos

P. P. F.

Calhau

Fonseca

C. M.

Righetti

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2024), Enschede, Netherlands, July 15–19, 2024. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 3882, pp. 1–14).

208.

Toyoshima

Barton

Koslicki

Massin

(2024a). The interconnection between artifacts and realizable entities. In Oliveira

Barcelos

P. P. F.

Calhau

Fonseca

C. M.

Righetti

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2024), Enschede, Netherlands, July 15–19, 2024. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 3882, pp. 1–14).

209.

Toyoshima

Delley

(2026). Towards a realism-based ontology of archeology: Artifacts, CIDOC-CRM and BFO. In Beverley

Keet

C. M.

Lamba

Lambrix

Tiwari

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2025). Catania, Italy, September 8–9, 2025. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 4176, pp. 1–11).

210.

Toyoshima

Jansen

(2026). Malfunctioning artifacts: A step towards a realizable-centered unifying account. In Beverley

Keet

C. M.

Lamba

Lambrix

Tiwari

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2025). Catania, Italy, September 8–9, 2025. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 4176, pp. 1–14).

211.

Toyoshima

Niki

(2021). Semantics matters: A new light on ontological commitments of logics. In Sanfilippo

E. M.

Kutz

Troquard

Hahmann

Masolo

Hoehndorf

Vita

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2021), Bolzano, Italy, September 11–18, 2021. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 2969, pp. 1–16).

212.

Toyoshima

Niki

(2024). To be more concrete about abstracta and concreta. In Trojahn

Porello

Barcelos

P. P. F.

213.

Troquard

(2014). A formal theory for conceptualizing artefacts and tool manipulations. In Garbacz

Kutz

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference of formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2014), Rio de Janerio, Brazil, September 22–25, 2014 (pp. 119–132). IOS Press.

214.

Trypuz

(2007). Formal ontology of action: A unifying approach. PhD thesis, University of Trento, Italy. Available online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233990262. (Last accessed on April 3, 2026).

215.

Tugby

(2024). The property of goal-directedness: Lessons from the dispositions debate. Ratio, 37(4), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/rati.12417

216.

van Woudenberg

Ranalli

Bracker

(2024). Authorship and ChatGPT: A conservative view. Philosophy and Technology, 37, 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00715-1

217.

Vermaas

P. E.

Houkes

(2003). Ascribing functions to technical artifacts: A challenge to etiological accounts of function. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 54(2), 268–289. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/54.2.261

218.

Vetter

(2015). Potentiality: From dispositions to modality. Oxford University Press.

219.

Vieu

Borgo

Masolo

(2008). Artefacts and roles: Modelling strategies in a multiplicative ontology. In Eschenbach

Grüninger

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th international conference (FOIS 2008), Saarbrücken, Germany, October 31-November 3, 2008 (pp. 121–134). IOS Press.

220.

Vignolo

(2010a). The ontology of products. Metaphysica, 11(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12133-009-0053-3

221.

Vignolo

(2010b). Towards an ontology of products. In Galton

Mizoguchi

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2010), Toronto, Canada, May 11–14, 2010 (pp. 287–300). IOS Press.

222.

Walter

(2013). Repeatable artworks as created types. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 53(4), 461–477. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayt026

223.

Wang

Guarino

Guizzardi

Mylopoulos

(2014). Towards an ontology of software: A requirements engineering perspective. In Garbacz

Kutz

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference of formal ontology in information systems (FOIS 2014), Rio de Janerio, Brazil, September 22–25, 2014 (pp. 317–329). IOS Press.

224.

Weigand

Johannesson

Andersson

(2021). An artifact ontology for design science research. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 133, 101878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2021.101878

225.

Williams

J. R. G.

(2019a). The metaphysics of representation. Oxford University Press.

226.

Williams

N. E.

(2019b). The powers metaphysic. Oxford University Press.

227.

Wouters

(2005). The function debate in philosophy. Acta Biotheoretica, 53(2), 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-005-5353-6

228.

Wright

(1973). Functions. Philosophical Review, 82(2), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183766

229.

Xhignesse

M.-A.

(2020). Failures of intention and failed-art. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 50(7), 905–917. https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2020.39

230.

Yablo

(2014). Aboutness. Princeton University Press.

231.

Yargan

Jansen

(2024). Does biomimetics require a unified account of function? In Oliveira

Barcelos

P. P. F.

Calhau

Fonseca

C. M.

Righetti

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th joint ontology workshops (JOWO 2024), Enschede, Netherlands, July 15–19, 2024. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 3882, pp. 1–14).