It is a mistake to seek universality when dealing with semantics and ontologies. The world is perceived and understood differently by every witness.
The solution is to allow every agent to either support or disapprove of every semantic statement. This way, the same query will output different realities depending on the agent's opinions, preferences, and network of trust.
Imagine a knowledge base where Jesus statistically both exists and doesn't exists, depending on who wants to know. A knowledge base where some food item is both a pizza and not a pizza. There's no way around it, and this will become the start of a new semantic marketplace.
I wrote a different version of the pizza ontology years ago, where the level of "spiciness" was dependent on the country you came from -- so American "hot" was equivalent to British "Medium".
It's hard to do, ontologically, but you can. It tends to make your ontology very complex though, and at the same time incapable (because it's hard to detect contradictions). So you should only do it when you need to.
The solution is to allow every agent to either support or disapprove of every semantic statement. This way, the same query will output different realities depending on the agent's opinions, preferences, and network of trust.
Imagine a knowledge base where Jesus statistically both exists and doesn't exists, depending on who wants to know. A knowledge base where some food item is both a pizza and not a pizza. There's no way around it, and this will become the start of a new semantic marketplace.