Ontology advice needed for SEO playground.

OK - I am a geek. A nerdling. Social misfits do stuff like this just to prove it can be done. Here is my current question du jour.

I am right now placing First Order Logic (FOL) binary and n-ary relationships into the associations binding for labeled relations in a test metadata facility (Registry-Repository). I am doing this because I got sick of Computational Intelligence researchers just talking about this and not actually coding and doing something to solve the problem so the Canadian cowboy instinct to code first and see where problems arise has taken over. Search technologies on the web have kind of plateaued. With no real competition, are Google and Yahoo going to keep innovating search to the point where a 3-word search term can find a needle in a haystack? I do not think so but it is not outside the realm of possibility. While researching some advanced SEO topics, I started realizing that fuzzy logic and quantum computing patterns have not yet been optimized for NL programming heuristics.

I have run into a problem that I would appreciate input on. My goal is to bind something like this (From SUMO - thanks to Adam et al for doing the hard work).

(=>
(instance ?OBJ Object)
(exists
(?TIME1 ?TIME2)
(and
(instance ?TIME1 TimePoint)
(instance ?TIME2 TimePoint)
(before ?TIME1 ?TIME2)
(forall
(?TIME)
(=>
(and
(beforeOrEqual ?TIME1 ?TIME)
(beforeOrEqual ?TIME ?TIME2))
(time ?OBJ ?TIME))))))

..to a registry-repository node instance to allow folksonomy tags to reference the upper level ontology classes that the folksonomy tag owners believe they belong to. Additionally, each instance of a folksonomy tag may have * relationships to other ontology classes or even other folksonomy tags. The latter relationships can be defined in terms of constrained relationship tags like “synonym, disjoint, etc.”.

I want to represent all upper ontologies; however some of them contain subtle nuances between their terms. Dolce, SUMO and others have defined binary relationships like transitive, intransitive, reflexive, irreflexive, symmetrical as well as some partial ontologies. The problem is that there are no namespace qualifications for these so I want to introduce that into my work. I was planning on just using the root URLs for each work however there are versions possible in some of the work.

I would like this to be in the form of (upper_ontology_identifier)+(version_or_instance)+(uuid) as a classifier followed by the term label such as “transitive”. I will probably use URIs for the UUID.

Question:

Has anyone ever come across a similar problem and if so, how did they solve it?

Thoughts and comments welcome too.