Skip to content

Mereotopology


Bartłomiej Skowron


Pages 354 - 361



Background. Mereotopology is a subfield of formal ontology which deals with both parthood relations and different types of connection relations between extended entities and their parts. As indicated by its name, the field combines mereology and topology (i.e. the theory, roughly speaking, of continuity and proximity). Thus mereotopology studies both spatial entities and the interconnections between them. By adding topological tools to mereology those interconnections can be described more subtly.




1International Center for Formal Ontology, Faculty of Administration and Social Sciences, Warsaw University of Technology



1 Asher, N.; Vieu, L., (1995), “Toward a Geometry of Common Sense: A Semantics and Complete Axiomatisation of Mereotopology”, in Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, San Mateo: Morgan Kaufman, 846-852.

2 Biaciano, L.; Gerla, G., (1996), “Connection Structures: Grzegorczyk’s and Whitehead’s Definitions of Point”, Notre Dame Journal of Symbolic Logic, 37(3): 431-239.

3 Breysse, O.; De Glas M., (2007), “A New Approach to the Concepts of Boundary and Contact: Toward an Alternative to Mereotopology”, Fundamenta Informaticae 78: 217–238.

4 Casati, R.; Varzi, A. C., (1999), Parts and Places, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

5 Clark, B. L., (1981), “A Calculus of Individuals Based on ’Connection’”, Notre Dame Journal of Symbolic Logic 22 (3): 204-2178.

6 Cohn, G. A.; Varzi A. C., (2003), “Mereotopological Connection”, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 32: 357-390.

7 Fine, K., (1995), “Part-whole”, in Smith, B.; Smith, D. W. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Husserl, Cambridge University Press, New York, 436-485.

8 Jänich, K., (1984), Topology, trans. by S. Levy, Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin-Heidelberg-London-Paris-Tokyo-Hong Kong-Barcelona-Budapest.

9 Lucas, J. R. The Conceptual Roots of Mathematics, Routledge, London 2000.

10 Mormann, T., (1998), “Continuous Lattices and Whiteheadian Theory of Space”, Logic and Logical Philosophy 6: 35-54.

11 Mormann, T., (2000), “Topological Representations of Mereological Systems”, Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 76, 463-486.

12 Mormann, T., (2013), “Topology as an Issue for History of Philosophy of Science”, in Andersen, H. et al. (eds.), New Challenges to Philosophy of Science, The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective 4, Dordrecht: Springer, 423-434.

13 Mormann, T., (2012) “Heyting Mereology as a Framework for Spatial Reasoning”, Axiomathes, Online First, DOI: 10.1007/s10516-011-9180-x.

14 Pratt-Hartmann, I., (2007), “First-order Mereotopology”, in Aiello, M.; Pratt-Hartmann, I.; van Benthem, J. (eds.), Handbook of Spatial Logics, Springer, 13-97.

15 Simons, P., (1987), Parts: A Study in Ontology, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

16 Smith, B., (1996), “Mereotopology: A Theory of Parts and Boundaries”, Data and Knowledge Engineering 20: 287-304.

17 Varzi, A. C., (1998), “Basic Problems of Mereotopology”, in Guarino, N. (ed.) Formal Ontology in Information Systems, Amsterdam, IOS Press, 29-38.

18 Varzi, A. C.; Gruszczyński, R. (eds.), (2015), Mereology and beyond (I) (= Special Issue: Logic and Logical Philosophy: 24).

19 Varzi, A. C.; Gruszczyński, R. (eds.) (2016), Mereology and beyond (II) (= Special Issue: Logic and Logical Philosophy: 25).

Share


Export Citation