MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1529545278

Three-Layer OWL Ontology Design.

2007· article· en· W1529545278 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Dumontier, Natalia Villanueva‐Rosales

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Publications (Maastricht University) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOntologyTerminologySemantics (computer science)ReuseUpper ontologyDomain (mathematical analysis)Layer (electronics)Information retrievalProcess ontologyOntology componentsOntology-based data integrationOntology alignmentSemantic WebProgramming languageEngineeringLinguisticsMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Ontology reuse is often predicated on agreement to the semantics wholly defined within an ontology document. But when faced with overly constrained semantics that one might partially reject, might one instead prefer reduced ontological commitment? In this paper, we describe how three layered ontology design promotes maximal reuse of domain ontologies by separating taxonomically organized domain terminology from i) disjointess, ii) complex expressions that define a world view, and iii) application specific requirements that impose a specific data model for data exchange and document validation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.210
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.147 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Publications (Maastricht University)Same topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207