Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defining a formal domain ontology is generally considered a useful, not to say necessary step in almost every software project. This is because software deals with ideas rather than with self-evident physical artefacts. However, this development step is hardly ever done, as ontologies rely on well-defined and semantically powerful AI concepts such as description logics or rule-based systems, and most software engineers are largely unfamiliar with these. Gaevic and his co-authors try to fill this gap by covering the subject of MDA application for ontology development on the Semantic Web. Part I of their book describes existing technologies, tools, and standards like XML, RDF, OWL, MDA, and UML. Part II presents the first detailed description of OMGa's new ODM (Ontology Definition Metamodel) initiative, a specification which is expected to be in the form of an OMG language like UML. Finally, Part III is dedicated to applications and practical aspects of developing ontologies using MDA-based languages. The book is supported by a website showing many ontologies, UML and other MDA-based models, and the transformations between them. "The book is equally suited to those who merely want to be informed of the relevant technological landscape, to practitioners dealing with concrete problems, and to researchers seeking pointers to potentially fruitful areas of research. The writing is technical yet clear and accessible, illustrated throughout with useful and easily digestible examples." from the Foreword by Bran Selic, IBM Rational Software, Canada. "I do not know another book that offers such a high quality insight into UML and ontologies." Steffen Staab, U Koblenz, Germany.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".