Refactoring of Ontologies: Improving the Design of Ontological Models with Concept Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is now widely accepted that in order to optimize both their usage and their design and maintenance ontologies should comply to design quality criteria, e.g., absence of redundancies and appropriate level of abstraction. Yet given the variety and scope of activities comprised in the life-cycle of an ontological model (OM), such as adapting, splitting, populating, this quality is easily compromised, especially with ontologies of larger size and/or resulting from the merge of smaller ones. Conversely, restoring it through refactoring, i.e., restructuring of the ontology to improve defects, is knowingly a challenging task as relocating an ontology element can adversely affect its neighbors. We investigate here a holistic refactoring approach that, given an ontology, amounts to presenting its designer with a list of the most plausible abstract entities missing in it. The core of the approach is a recently devised concept analysis method, called 'relational', that allows deeper refactoring by feeding into the process various ontological relations, e.g., concept-to-property incidences. The focus here is put on the NLP-aspects of the refactoring, while we also provide some preliminary results from a series of validating experiments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".