Integration of Contextual Descriptors in Ontology Alignment for Enrichment of Semantic Correspondence

Eduard Manziuk; Iurii Krak; Oleksander Barmak; Pavlo Radiuk; Sergiy Yakovlev; Vladislav Kuznetsov

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Integration of Contextual Descriptors in Ontology Alignment for Enrichment of Semantic Correspondence

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Adding contextual descriptors to essential ones raises ontology alignment similarity by about 4.36% on average.

desk verdict The formalization is tidy but the reported 4.36% improvement is an artifact of the authors' own scoring scheme, so the empirical claim doesn't stand without an independent reference alignment. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19113 v1 pith:TVDYXHQJ submitted 2024-11-28 cs.CL cs.IR

Eduard Manziuk , Oleksander Barmak , Pavlo Radiuk , Vladislav Kuznetsov , Iurii Krak , Sergiy Yakovlev This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.IR MSC 68T30

keywords ontologyalignmentcontextualdescriptorssemanticmatchingknowledgerepresentationessentialheterogeneityethicalAIhierarchicalstructure

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that ontology alignment—matching concepts across different knowledge bases—improves when each concept is described by two kinds of descriptors: essential ones that capture formal structure, and contextual ones that capture situational, cultural, or social meaning. The proposed method integrates both types through a hierarchical representation and a similarity formula that weights descriptor matches by the number of sources supporting them. In experiments on ten AI ethics principles, adding contextual descriptors raised alignment scores by an average of 4.36%, with the largest gains for Privacy (+7.04%), Responsibility (+5.59%), and Freedom & Autonomy (+5.35%). A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that context-dependent meaning is measurable and worth encoding during alignment.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the contextual descriptor: a property-level descriptor capturing situational or external factors such as purpose, conditions of knowledge acquisition, and cultural or social context, as opposed to an essential descriptor that captures formal, measurable structure. The integration is carried out by taking the union of essential and contextual descriptor relations for each property and feeding the combined relation into a similarity formula whose terms are weighted by the number of sources supporting each descriptor. This lets the alignment score change when context changes, which is what produces the reported gains.

What would settle it

Apply the same integration to a highly formalized ontology where context is definitionally irrelevant, such as a mathematics or database schema; if the contextual-descriptor version still improves scores by roughly four percentage points, the gain is not evidence of contextual semantics. A second check would be to give the descriptor-correspondence task to a blinded panel of experts and see whether the 4.36% average reproduces.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that distinguishing essential from contextual descriptors and integrating them into a unified relation yields more accurate semantic correspondence than using essential descriptors alone. The paper formalizes entities, properties, and descriptors as relations, then defines a similarity score that combines essential and contextual descriptor matches, weighted by source counts. On a corpus of AI ethics guidelines with 84 sources, the combined method outperforms the essential-only baseline on all ten principles, with an average relative improvement of approximately 4.36%.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result rests on the expert-assigned correspondences and the averaged similarity judgments being a valid measure of alignment quality; if those judgments are unreliable, the reported 4.36% improvement could be an artifact of adding extra annotation rather than a genuine semantic gain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In context-sensitive domains, adding contextual descriptors should yield higher alignment scores than essential-only baselines.
Privacy, Responsibility, and Freedom & Autonomy are the concepts most affected by context, so alignment efforts in AI ethics should prioritize those areas.
The relative ranking of ethical principles stays almost unchanged after adding contextual descriptors, suggesting the method deepens rather than reshuffles existing priorities.
In highly formalized domains where context is static or irrelevant, the method offers little benefit, as the paper itself limits its scope.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A testable extension would be to replace expert-averaged descriptor correspondences with embeddings trained on context-rich text, to see whether the 4.36% gain comes from contextual semantics or from having more annotated features.
If the result generalizes, benchmark suites for ontology alignment should include context-sensitive test cases; otherwise methods optimized purely on formal structure may look deceptively strong.
The paper's weight-optimization suggestion could be tested by measuring gains per domain: law, health care, and social media should show larger improvements than mathematics or database schemas.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Flatly: the only real result in this paper, the 4.36% average improvement from adding contextual descriptors, is not supported by the experiment as reported. The improvement is computed via Eq. (13) from similarity scores that come from the authors' own expert-assigned correspondences. The same experts who decided which descriptors are contextual also supply the similarity values used to compute S, and the 'improvement' is the relative change in that self-scored quantity. There is no reference alignment, no precision/recall, no held-out judgments, no statistical test. Adding more positive-weighted terms selected by the same expert will almost mechanically raise the score, so the reported gains for Privacy (+7.04%) and Responsibility (+5.59%) don't tell us whether the alignment is better, only that the scoring formula changed.

That said, the paper has some virtues. The essential/contextual distinction is not new — context-aware matching has been around for a while — but the formalization in Eqs. (1)-(12) is clean, and the application to AI ethics guidelines, using the Jobin et al. corpus of 84 sources, is a sensible domain choice. The hierarchical model and the worked example for 'Responsibility' are readable, and the criteria for classifying descriptors are explicit, even if manual.

The soft spots beyond the circular evaluation: Eq. (13) appears twice with different meanings (similarity and improvement), which is confusing. The authors do admit a limitation in Section VI, but it only concerns domains where context is insignificant; it does not address the fact that the evaluation uses their own correspondences. That omission is the real problem. There is also no comparison with any existing ontology alignment method, only with their own essential-only baseline; the related-work section cites benchmarks but none are used.

For whom is this paper? It might be useful as a clear example of a context-aware matching pipeline for AI ethics ontologies, and as a cautionary case in evaluation design. With a proper benchmark — even a small reference alignment and F1 — the method could be worth reporting.

My recommendation: don't accept the empirical claim as is. But this deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject, because the core idea, while modest, is not absurd and the formalization could be made rigorous. If I were handling it, I'd send it to review with a request for a real evaluation.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a formal framework for ontology alignment that distinguishes essential descriptors from contextual descriptors and integrates them into a similarity score. The authors formalize entities, properties, essential/contextual descriptor relationships, and a hierarchical structure, then apply the approach to ten AI ethics principles derived from a corpus of 84 sources. The central empirical claim is that adding contextual descriptors improves alignment similarity by an average of about 4.36%, with the largest gains for Privacy, Responsibility, and Freedom & Autonomy. The paper concludes that contextual descriptors significantly enhance ontology alignment accuracy.

Significance. The idea of separating essential and contextual descriptors for ontology alignment is conceptually reasonable and could be practically useful in domains where context matters, such as ethical AI. The paper provides a formal apparatus for integrating descriptor types and makes a concrete, falsifiable empirical claim. However, the reported improvement is not supported by the evaluation methodology: the similarity score used to measure improvement is constructed from expert-assigned correspondences that also define the descriptor contributions, and no independent reference alignment, standard benchmark, or statistical test is used. As a result, the headline 4.36% gain may be an artifact of the scoring function rather than evidence of genuine alignment quality. The formalization is also presented in a corrupted form that prevents reproducibility. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's central contribution.

major comments (4)

[§IV, Eq. (13)] The improvement metric Imp = (S_{f,c} − S_f)/S_f is computed from the same expert-assigned similarity values that define both S_{f,c} and S_f. Section IV states that 'an expert approach was used to establish correspondence based on individual assessment with subsequent averaging,' and the expert also supplies the descriptor similarity values used in Eq. (13). Because the expert knows the intended correspondences and the contextual descriptors are not independently validated, the positive change in S when contextual terms are added is an expected property of adding positively weighted terms, not evidence of improved alignment quality. No independent reference alignment or held-out expert judgments are used, so the central claim of a 4.36% average improvement is unsupported.
[§V] The experimental section reports percentage changes in the proposed similarity score but never evaluates alignment quality using standard metrics such as precision, recall, F1, or the reference alignments used in the cited benchmark literature (e.g., OAEI-style evaluation). Section V also does not compare the proposed method against any of the existing approaches reviewed in Section II (BERTMap, VeeAlign, OntoEA, etc.). Without a baseline comparison on shared tasks, the claim that contextual descriptors 'significantly improve' ontology alignment is not established even for the ten AI ethics concepts under study.
[§IV and §V] The evaluation is based on ten AI ethics principles, a single expert-derived set of correspondences, and no measure of variability or statistical significance. The reported improvements range from 2.56% to 7.04%, but the paper does not report confidence intervals, inter-rater agreement, or any test of whether the differences could arise from noise. Given the small number of concepts and the subjective nature of the descriptor classification, the 'approximately 4.36%' average cannot be considered a robust empirical finding as presented.
[§IV, Eq. (13)] Equation (13) appears twice with different meanings: first as the similarity formula S = (Σ s_i log src_i + ...)/(Σ log src_i + ...), and then again as the improvement Imp = (S_{f,c} − S_f)/S_f. The duplicated equation number and the garbled mathematical notation throughout Section III (e.g., Eqs. (1)–(12) contain unreadable placeholders) make it impossible to reproduce the exact computation. Since the similarity formula is the basis for the paper's central claim, this is a substantive reproducibility defect, not merely a typographical issue.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and §VII] The abstract and conclusions both state the average improvement is 'approximately 4.36%', but the paper does not explain how this average is computed across the ten principles (simple mean, weighted, etc.). Please state the aggregation method.
[§IV, Table I] The descriptor classification criteria are listed, but the table's 'Type' column uses 'Formal' rather than 'Essential'. Please align the terminology with the paper's central distinction between essential and contextual descriptors.
[§III] The formalization in Eqs. (1)–(12) is heavily corrupted: many symbols and set definitions are missing or replaced by placeholders. Please provide a clean typeset version with all variables defined, as the current text is not self-contained.
[General] There are repeated typographical and grammatical issues, including 'а new approach' (Cyrillic 'а'), 'a essential descriptor', and inconsistent comma spacing in references. A thorough language edit is needed.
[§V] Figure 3 is referenced for the change in indicators, but the paper does not provide the underlying numeric values in a table, making it difficult to verify the reported percentages. Please include the full per-principle data.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The reported 4.36% improvement is computed from the same expert-assigned similarity values that define the score, so the headline result is a self-referential output rather than an independent evaluation.

fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Eq. (13) (similarity formula) and the improvement formula immediately after it; result quoted in Section VII]
"Given the small number of sources, an expert approach was used to establish correspondence based on individual assessment with subsequent averaging. ... The next step is to supplement each concept with corresponding contextual descriptors and conduct a relevant analysis regarding the similarity obtained using the combined method (essential + contextual descriptors) S_{f,c} and the similarity obtained by the basic method (only essential descriptors) S_f. Imp = (S_{f,c} − S_f)/S_f"

The improvement metric Imp is a relative change of the same similarity score S: the numerator S_{f,c} is Eq. (13) with the contextual-descriptor terms included, and the denominator S_f is Eq. (13) with only essential terms. The contextual similarity values entering S_{f,c} are not obtained from an independent reference alignment; they are the expert-assigned correspondence values described in the same section. Thus the reported +4.36% (and per-concept gains such as Privacy +7.04%) measures how much the experts' own added descriptor scores move the formula, not whether alignment quality improved against an external ground truth. No precision, recall, F1, or independent gold alignment is used to break the loop.

full rationale

The central empirical claim is an improvement in a similarity score produced by the paper's own Eq. (13). The score's contextual-descriptor terms are filled by expert-assigned correspondence values ('an expert approach was used to establish correspondence based on individual assessment with subsequent averaging'), and the claimed improvement is the relative difference between the score with those terms and the score without them. Consequently the +4.36% result, and the per-concept percentages reported in Section V, are algebraic outputs of the same expert inputs that define the score; no external gold alignment, held-out judgments, or standard metrics (precision/recall/F1) are used to validate the alignment. This is not a case of self-citation: the cited prior work [22] is not used to justify the contextual-descriptor claim, and the stated limitation (context-insignificant domains) does not address the evaluation loop. One central circular step is therefore present; the derivation is self-contained in the narrow sense that it never goes outside the authors' own score, but that is precisely why the headline improvement is not an independent result.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the completeness and correctness of manually curated descriptor classifications, expert-assigned similarity values, and the assumption that relative score changes measure alignment quality. No free numerical parameters are fitted, but the hand-built expert judgments and descriptor assignments are not independently verified.

free parameters (1)

Expert-assigned descriptor similarity values s_ij = not provided
Used in Eq. (13); established by individual expert assessment with subsequent averaging (Section IV), so the central result depends on unreported human judgments.

assumptions (5)

standard math Relational algebra operations (projection, selection, union, difference) correctly model the entity-property-descriptor structure.
Eqs. (4)-(12) assume standard relational algebra semantics without proof.
domain assumption The enumerated essential and contextual descriptors for each concept are complete and correct.
Table I lists descriptors only for Responsibility; the other nine concepts' descriptor lists are not shown, yet they drive the reported scores.
domain assumption Expert-assigned correspondences provide the ground truth for descriptor similarity.
Section IV: 'an expert approach was used to establish correspondence based on individual assessment with subsequent averaging.'
ad hoc to paper The improvement metric Imp=(S_{f,c} - S_f)/S_f reflects alignment quality.
No external reference alignment is used; the metric only compares the paper's own scores.
ad hoc to paper Logarithmic source-count weighting in Eq. (13) is an appropriate similarity weighting.
Introduced without derivation or comparison to alternative weighting schemes.

invented entities (1)

Contextual descriptors
purpose: To represent situational, cultural, and social factors that affect interpretation during ontology alignment.
Defined and operationalized solely inside this paper; no external benchmark, formal proof, or falsifiable prediction independently establishes the construct's utility.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integration of Contextual Descriptors in Ontology Alignment for Enrichment of Semantic Correspondence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TVDYXHQJ

@misc{pith2026241119113,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integration of Contextual Descriptors in Ontology Alignment for Enrichment of Semantic Correspondence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TVDYXHQJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19113}
}

read the original abstract

This paper proposes a novel approach to semantic ontology alignment using contextual descriptors. A formalization was developed that enables the integration of essential and contextual descriptors to create a comprehensive knowledge model. The hierarchical structure of the semantic approach and the mathematical apparatus for analyzing potential conflicts between concepts, particularly in the example of "Transparency" and "Privacy" in the context of artificial intelligence, are demonstrated. Experimental studies showed a significant improvement in ontology alignment metrics after the implementation of contextual descriptors, especially in the areas of privacy, responsibility, and freedom & autonomy. The application of contextual descriptors achieved an average overall improvement of approximately 4.36%. The results indicate the effectiveness of the proposed approach for more accurately reflecting the complexity of knowledge and its contextual dependence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19113 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** General structural hierarchy for the semantic determination of correspondence of substantive categories. In the semantic approach to knowledge analysis, contextual descriptors serve as an integral element that enriches the model and allows for greater accuracy and correspondence to the real world. This contributes to the creation of more flexible and adaptive knowledge systems capable of effectively operating in div… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Division of descriptors into essential and contextual components in the semantic determination of correspondence. To obtain the set of property values and descriptors, appropriate projections are applied. Thus, to obtain all property values for a specific entity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Change in indicators due to the expansion of descriptor specification through the addition of contextual descriptors. Indicators in this group (Transparency, Responsibility, Trust) demonstrate a high level of importance, particularly Transparency (90.80%). This highlights the critical role of AI system understandability and accountability. In the Justice and Ethics group, Justice & Fairness (78.24%) and Non-malefice… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

A survey of entity alignment of knowledge graph based on embedded representation

Huang, J.; Wang, J.; Li, Y.; Zhao, W. A survey of entity alignment of knowledge graph based on embedded representation. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 2022, 2171 (1). https://doi.org/10 .1088/1742- 6596/2171/1/012050

work page 2022
[2]

Improving biomedical ontology matching using domain -specific word embeddings

Li, G. Improving biomedical ontology matching using domain -specific word embeddings. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Science and Application Engineering ; CSAE ’20; Association for Computing Mac hinery: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3424978.3425102

work page arXiv 2020
[3]

D.; Li, M.; Jiang, Y.; Qi, J

Zhang, R.; Trisedya, B. D.; Li, M.; Jiang, Y.; Qi, J. A benchmark and comprehensive survey on knowledge graph entity alignment via representation learning. The VLDB Journ al, 2022, 31 (5), 1143–1168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-022-00747-z

work page doi:10.1007/s00778-022-00747-z 2022
[4]

Biomedical ontology alignment: an approach based on representation learning

Kolyvakis, P.; Kalousis, A.; Smith, B.; Kiritsis, D. Biomedical ontology alignment: an approach based on representation learning. Journal of Biomedical Semantics , 2018, 9 (1), 1 –20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-018-0187-8

work page doi:10.1186/s13326-018-0187-8 2018
[5]

VeeAlign: multifaceted context representation using dual attention for ontology alignment

Iyer, V.; Agarwal, A.; Kumar, H. VeeAlign: multifaceted context representation using dual attention for ontology alignment. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Proces sing; Moens, M. -F., Huang, X., Specia, L., Yih, S. W., Eds.; Association for Computational Linguistics: Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 20...

doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.842 2021
[6]

Augmenting ontology alignment by semantic embedding and distant supervision

Chen, J ; Jiménez -Ruiz, E.; Horrocks, I.; Antonyrajah, D.; Hadian, A.; Lee, J. Augmenting ontology alignment by semantic embedding and distant supervision. The Semantic Web ; Verborgh, R., Hose, K., Paulheim, H., Champin, P. -A., Maleshkova, M., Corcho, O., Ristoski, P., Alam, M., Eds.; Spri nger International Publishing: Cham, 2021; pp 392–408. https://...

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77385-4_23 2021
[7]

BERTMap: a bert - based ontology alignment system

He, Y.; Chen, J.; Antonyrajah, D.; Horrocks, I. BERTMap: a bert - based ontology alignment system. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intel ligence, 2022, 36 (5), 5684 –5691. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v36i5.20510

doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i5.20510 2022
[8]

Combining fca -map with representation learning for aligning large biomedical ontologies

Li, G.; Zhang, S.; Wei, J.; Ye, W. Combining fca -map with representation learning for aligning large biomedical ontologies. OM@ ISWC; 2021; pp 207–208

work page 2021

Show all 28 references

[9]

V.; Krak, Y

Barmak, O. V.; Krak, Y. V.; Manziuk, E. A. Characteristics for choice of models in the ansables classification. Problems in Programming , 2018, No. 2–3, 171–179

2018
[10]

Diversity as the basis for effective clustering-based classification

Barmak, O.; Krak, I.; Manziuk, E. Diversity as the basis for effective clustering-based classification . CEUR-WS, 2020, 2711, 53–67

2020
[11]

A.; Puhach, V

Manziuk, E A ; Wójcik, W ; Barmak, O V ; Krak, I V ; Kulias, A I ; Drabovska, V. A.; Puhach, V. M.; Sundetov, S.; Mussabekova, A. Approach to creating an ensemble on a hierarchy of clusters using model decisions correlation. Przegląd Elektrotechniczny, 2020, 96 (9), 108–113. h...

2020 doi
[12]

OntoEA: ontology-guided entity alignment via joint knowledge graph embedding

Xiang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, J.; Chen, X.; Lin, Z.; Zheng, Y. OntoEA: ontology-guided entity alignment via joint knowledge graph embedding. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021 ; Zong, C., Xia, F., Li, W., Navigli, R., Eds.; Association for...

2021
[13]

Hasanah, A

Jayadianti, H. ; Hasanah, A. A. P.; Fauziah, Y.; Saifullah, S. Knowledge representation of drug using ontology alignment and mapping techniques. Science in Information Technology Letters , 2021, 2 (1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.31763/sitech.v2i1.561

2021 doi
[14]

M.; Such ithra, R

Tayur, V. M.; Such ithra, R. Multi -ontology mapping generative adversarial network in internet of things for ontology alignment. Internet of Things, 2022, 20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2022.100616

2022
[15]

Kainzner, M ; Klösch, C ; Filipiak, D ; Chhetri, T R ; Fensel, A Towards reusable ontology alignment for manufacturing maintenance; 2021; pp 1–5

2021
[16]

Learning reference alignments for ontology matching within and across domains

Lima, B.; Branco, R.; Castanheira, J.; Fonseca, G.; Pesquita, C. Learning reference alignments for ontology matching within and across domains. OM@ ISWC; 2020; pp 72–76

2020
[17]

An eye on representation learning in ontology matching

Sousa, G.; Lima, R.; Trojahn, C. An eye on representation learning in ontology matching. OM@ ISWC; 2022; pp 49–60

2022
[18]

Is aligning embedding spaces a challenging task? a study on heterogeneous embedding alignment methods; arXiv, 2020

Biswas, R.; Alam, M.; Sack, H. Is aligning embedding spaces a challenging task? a study on heterogeneous embedding alignment methods; arXiv, 2020. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2002.09247

2020 doi arXiv
[19]

Methods of managing the evolution of ontologies and their alignments

Pietranik, M.; Kozierkiewicz, A. Methods of managing the evolution of ontologies and their alignments. Appl Intell, 2023, 53 (17), 20382– 20401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-023-04545-0

2023 doi
[20]

An overview of entity alignment: cross - lingual and graph approaches

Wang, F.; Xie, Y.; Zhang, K. An overview of entity alignment: cross - lingual and graph approaches. 2021 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Data Science in Cyberspace (DSC) ; 2021; pp 339 –345. https://doi.org/10.1109/DSC53577.2021.00054

2021
[21]

M.; Sherif, M

Chakraborty, J.; Zahera, H. M.; Sherif, M. A.; Bansal, S. K. ONTOCONNECT: domain -agnostic ontology alignment using graph embedding with negative sampling. 2021 20th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA); 2021; pp 942–945. https://doi.org/1...

2021
[22]

A.; Pylypiak, O

Manziuk, E.; Krak, I.; Barmak, O.; Mazurets, O.; Kuznetsov, V. A.; Pylypiak, O. Structural alignment method of conceptual categories of ontology and formalized domain. ProfIT AI; 2021; pp 11–22

2021
[23]

Ontology alignment with semantic and structural embeddings

Hao, Z.; Maye r, W.; Xia, J.; Li, G.; Qin, L.; Feng, Z. Ontology alignment with semantic and structural embeddings. Journal of Web Semantics, 2023, 78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2023.100798

2023
[24]

Ontology matching through absolute orientation of embedding spaces; arXiv, 2022; pp 1 –5

Portisch, J.; Costa, G.; Stefani, K.; Kreplin, K.; Hladik, M.; Paul heim, H. Ontology matching through absolute orientation of embedding spaces; arXiv, 2022; pp 1 –5. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.04040

2022 doi arXiv
[25]

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2104.01628

Kachroudi, M Revisiting indirect ontology alignment : new challenging issues in cross -lingual context; arXiv, 2021. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2104.01628

2021 doi arXiv
[26]

The global landscape of ai ethics guidelines

Jobin, A.; Ienca, M.; Vayena, E. The global landscape of ai ethics guidelines. Nat Mach Intell , 2019, 1 (9), 389 –399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2

2019 doi
[27]

ISO/IEC TR 24028:2020 https://www.iso.org/cms/render/ live/en/sites/isoorg/contents/data/standard/07/76/77608.html (accessed Jun 23, 2024)

2020
[1128]

https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.96

2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A survey of entity alignment of knowledge graph based on embedded representation

Huang, J.; Wang, J.; Li, Y.; Zhao, W. A survey of entity alignment of knowledge graph based on embedded representation. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 2022, 2171 (1). https://doi.org/10 .1088/1742- 6596/2171/1/012050

work page 2022

[2] [2]

Improving biomedical ontology matching using domain -specific word embeddings

Li, G. Improving biomedical ontology matching using domain -specific word embeddings. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Science and Application Engineering ; CSAE ’20; Association for Computing Mac hinery: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3424978.3425102

work page arXiv 2020

[3] [3]

D.; Li, M.; Jiang, Y.; Qi, J

Zhang, R.; Trisedya, B. D.; Li, M.; Jiang, Y.; Qi, J. A benchmark and comprehensive survey on knowledge graph entity alignment via representation learning. The VLDB Journ al, 2022, 31 (5), 1143–1168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-022-00747-z

work page doi:10.1007/s00778-022-00747-z 2022

[4] [4]

Biomedical ontology alignment: an approach based on representation learning

Kolyvakis, P.; Kalousis, A.; Smith, B.; Kiritsis, D. Biomedical ontology alignment: an approach based on representation learning. Journal of Biomedical Semantics , 2018, 9 (1), 1 –20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-018-0187-8

work page doi:10.1186/s13326-018-0187-8 2018

[5] [5]

VeeAlign: multifaceted context representation using dual attention for ontology alignment

Iyer, V.; Agarwal, A.; Kumar, H. VeeAlign: multifaceted context representation using dual attention for ontology alignment. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Proces sing; Moens, M. -F., Huang, X., Specia, L., Yih, S. W., Eds.; Association for Computational Linguistics: Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 20...

doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.842 2021

[6] [6]

Augmenting ontology alignment by semantic embedding and distant supervision

Chen, J ; Jiménez -Ruiz, E.; Horrocks, I.; Antonyrajah, D.; Hadian, A.; Lee, J. Augmenting ontology alignment by semantic embedding and distant supervision. The Semantic Web ; Verborgh, R., Hose, K., Paulheim, H., Champin, P. -A., Maleshkova, M., Corcho, O., Ristoski, P., Alam, M., Eds.; Spri nger International Publishing: Cham, 2021; pp 392–408. https://...

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77385-4_23 2021

[7] [7]

BERTMap: a bert - based ontology alignment system

He, Y.; Chen, J.; Antonyrajah, D.; Horrocks, I. BERTMap: a bert - based ontology alignment system. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intel ligence, 2022, 36 (5), 5684 –5691. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v36i5.20510

doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i5.20510 2022

[8] [8]

Combining fca -map with representation learning for aligning large biomedical ontologies

Li, G.; Zhang, S.; Wei, J.; Ye, W. Combining fca -map with representation learning for aligning large biomedical ontologies. OM@ ISWC; 2021; pp 207–208

work page 2021