(BAFMTG) wrote a paper "Contextual Ontologies". They're talking about "ontologies" in the computer-science sense, however. I can't tell how relevant that is to what Fine and I are talking about.
It might be (but, for all I know, might not be), there is a (partial) dictionary of translations between their language and ours. For example they give "Contextual ontologies are ontologies that characterize a concept by a set of properties that vary according to context."
So it might be that
(1) what they mean by "concept" is basically what we mean by "object",
(2) their "context" is our "subject", "frame of reference", "information-bearer", "anchor", etc.
(3) their "domain" is our "public", "effable objects", "public domain".
If so, Non-standard Realism already has a candidate formal language.
The paper is
- Motivations, Challenges, and Solutions -
Djamal Benslimane(1), Ahmed Arara(1), Gilles Falquet(2)
Zakaria Maamar(3), Philippe Thiran(4), and Faiez Gargouri(5)
1 LIRIS Laboratory, Lyon 1 University, Villeurbanne, France
2 University of Geneva, Genva, Switzerland
3 Zayed University, Dubai, U.A.E
4 University of namur, Namur, Belgium
5 ISIM, University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia
and Fine at NYU's is Tense and Reality on PhilPapers at http://philpapers.org/rec/FINTAR-2