Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Fuzzy Ontology Embeddings and Visual Query Building for Ontology Exploration

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces fuzzy membership vectors that let users compose ontology concepts with AND, OR, NOT and retrieve semantically similar concepts without formal query syntax.

desk verdict FuzzyVis has a genuinely neat compositional embedding idea, but its only worked example applies that idea to HPO—which is a DAG—while the construction is defined only for trees, and there is no evaluation beyond a narrative scenario. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.08128 v3 pith:UHRWJ6YS submitted 2025-08-11 cs.HC

Vladimir Zhurov , John Kausch , Kamran Sedig , Mostafa Milani This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords fuzzyontologyembeddingsexplorationvisualquerybuildinglogicconceptsimilarityvisualizationalpha-embeddingsHumanPhenotype
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

The paper tries to establish that ontology exploration can be made both expressive and beginner-friendly by turning each concept into a fuzzy membership vector and letting users build composite concepts with conjunction, disjunction, and negation. If true, non-experts can issue complex semantic queries by dragging and combining familiar concepts instead of learning SPARQL or memorizing ontology structure. The central mechanism is a vector embedding defined by membership degrees over a fixed domain, with composite queries computed on the fly by element-wise fuzzy operations and answered by cosine similarity against stored primitive-concept embeddings. The paper also proposes a synthetic construction, called alpha-embeddings, for tree-structured ontologies, using graph distance and a decay parameter. A usage scenario in the Human Phenotype Ontology shows a physician finding relevant phenotypes by combining speech and swallowing symptoms while excluding immune abnormalities.

What carries the argument

The $\alpha$-embedding construction: a synthetic fuzzy interpretation over a tree-structured taxonomy built by random leaf sampling, with membership decaying as $alpha^{{d(C,C')}}$ along graph distance and internal concepts aggregated through fuzzy union. It supplies the fixed domain and membership values that define Eq. 1, guarantees fuzzy satisfaction of taxonomic subsumption axioms, and supports on-the-fly composite query embeddings through element-wise fuzzy operators. Cosine similarity over these vectors is the query-answering mechanism.

What would settle it

Take HPO, build an alpha-embedding with alpha=0.25, run the query Slurred speech ⊓ Dysphagia ⊓ ¬Abnormality of the immune system, and check whether the top-k list consistently contains known related phenotypes such as Pseudobulbar paralysis across repeated random leaf samples and across alpha values such as 0.1, 0.25, and 0.5; if rankings change drastically or unrelated concepts rank highly, the semantic-similarity claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that ontology concepts can be represented as membership vectors over a fixed domain, and that user-defined composite concepts built with logical operators can be matched against those vectors to retrieve the most semantically similar primitive concepts. For a fuzzy interpretation I with domain elements x_1,...,x_d, each concept C is embedded as v_C = [mu^I_C(x_1),...,mu^I_C(x_d)] in [0,1]^d. A query Q such as Slurred speech ⊓ Dysphagia ⊓ ¬Abnormality of the immune system gets its embedding by applying the chosen t-norm, t-conorm, and negation element-wise to the primitive embeddings; the system then returns the primitive concepts with highest cosine similarity. This composi

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that for a tree-structured ontology, sampling leaves uniformly at random and assigning membership by graph-distance decay $\alpha$^d produces vectors whose cosine similarity reflects true semantic relevance, with the decay parameter $\alpha$=0.25 chosen in the demonstration without a reported sensitivity analysis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can express vague or partially specified information needs as combinations of known concepts and still obtain ranked, semantically similar primitive concepts even when the composite concept does not exist in the ontology.
  • Composite query embeddings are computed at query time with vectorized fuzzy operations, so new concepts do not require retraining or re-embedding, unlike static ontology embedding methods.
  • Precomputing primitive-concept embeddings and storing them in a vector database enables near-instant top-k retrieval over large ontologies.
  • For tree-structured ontologies, alpha-embeddings automatically satisfy subsumption axioms and give users a tunable parameter, alpha, that controls smoothness and generalization of the semantic space.
  • The visual interface allows users to build these queries by dragging and dropping concepts and nesting queries, lowering the syntactic barrier compared to SPARQL and similar formal languages.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to sweep alpha and repeat random leaf sampling on HPO, measuring whether the top-k results for a fixed composite query remain stable; large rank changes would indicate the semantic-similarity claim depends strongly on a parameter chosen without sensitivity analysis.
  • The same compositional fuzzy-vector scheme could be extended beyond tree-structured taxonomies to roles and non-taxonomic axioms, provided a fuzzy reasoner supplies an interpretation over a fixed domain; the paper lists this as future work.
  • The membership vectors may double as interpretable concept profiles, allowing users to inspect which domain elements drive a similarity score, which could support explainable ontology exploration.
  • A direct comparison of retrieval precision and user effort against keyword search and SPARQL baselines would test whether the visual fuzzy-query approach actually reduces vocabulary mismatch for non-experts; the paper demonstrates the scenario but does not measure it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents FuzzyVis, a proof-of-concept system that combines fuzzy ontology embeddings with a visual query builder for ontology exploration. Primitive concepts are encoded as membership vectors over a finite domain (Eq. 1), and composite queries are formed by element-wise fuzzy conjunction, disjunction, and negation. A synthetic 'α-embedding' construction is proposed for hierarchical ontologies (Section 4.1), using distance-based membership decay from randomly sampled leaves. The front end supports treemap/network visualization, search, highlighting, and drag-and-drop query composition. The central demonstration is a narrative usage scenario on the Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) that reports top-k results for a composite query such as Slurred speech ⊓ Dysphagia ⊓ ¬Abnormality of the immune system.

Significance. The underlying idea—compositional membership-vector embeddings with on-the-fly fuzzy operations—is coherent for tree-structured taxonomies and could offer a lightweight, syntax-free alternative to formal ontology querying. The interface design is described in substantial detail, and the mathematical formulation of Eq. (1) is clear. However, the paper provides no user study, no comparison against baselines (e.g., keyword search, SPARQL, or other ontology embeddings), no sensitivity analysis for α or sample size, and no reproducibility controls for the randomized α-embedding. More seriously, the only demonstration applies the α-embedding to HPO, which is a DAG, even though Section 4.1 assumes a tree. The central effectiveness claim therefore rests on an ill-defined construction and an illustrative narrative rather than systematic evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, §5.3.1, §5.4] Section 4.1 defines α-embeddings under the assumption that 'the ontology O forms a tree-structured taxonomy' and uses 'the graph distance d(C,C′) ... to their lowest common ancestor,' which is unique only in a tree. Section 5.3.1, however, states that HPO's Cardiac valve calcification is a child of both Cardiovascular calcification and Abnormal heart morphology, so HPO is a DAG with multiple inheritance. In a DAG, the lowest common ancestor is not unique and the distance is undefined; the recursive fuzzy-union step also needs a consistent convention for nodes with multiple parents. Section 5.4 nevertheless applies α-embeddings to HPO and reports concrete top-k results (Pseudobulbar paralysis, Abnormal esophagus physiology). These results are not reproducible from the described algorithm. The paper must either extend the construction to DAGs (e.g., define distance via min/max over common
  2. [§5.4, §6] The central claim that FuzzyVis 'supports subtle information needs and helps users uncover relevant concepts' is supported only by a narrative usage scenario. No user study, task-completion metrics, comparison with baseline search/query tools, or ablation of the fuzzy operators is reported. Thus, the paper does not provide evidence that the proposed querying model outperforms keyword search or SPARQL for non-experts, nor that the retrieved concepts are semantically appropriate beyond the authors' own interpretation. I recommend adding a systematic evaluation—even a small user study or a benchmark with ground-truth query relevance—or explicitly reframing the contributions as an illustrative prototype and tempering the effectiveness claims.
  3. [§4.1] The α-embedding construction has at least three free choices that are not analyzed: the decay parameter α (set to 0.25 in §5.4 without sensitivity analysis), the number of sampled domain elements |ΔI| (not reported for the HPO scenario), and the random choice of leaf concepts for each domain element (no seed mentioned). Cosine similarity rankings can change with α and with the random sample, so the specific top-k outputs in §5.4 may not be stable. The manuscript should report these parameters, include a sensitivity analysis, and either fix a random seed or average over repeated samples.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.3] Typo: 'treemps' should be 'treemaps'.
  2. [§1, Example 1] 'air way' should be 'airway'.
  3. [§1] The phrase 'a typical ontology views' is grammatically awkward; consider rephrasing.
  4. [§4.1] The statement 'We assume ... tree-structured taxonomy' is immediately followed by 'e.g., HPO [31]' as an example. Since Section 5.3.1 later shows HPO has multiple inheritance, this example should be corrected or qualified.
  5. [§4] The claim that the generated interpretation 'satisfies all taxonomic axioms' covers subsumption but does not address disjointness or other non-taxonomic axioms mentioned in Section 3.1. The phrase 'semantically grounded' is therefore stronger than what the α-embedding actually guarantees.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the α-embedding and fuzzy query evaluation are the same self-defined model, and the HPO demonstration, while problematic, is illustrative rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Section 4.1 explicitly defines a synthetic fuzzy interpretation: for each sampled leaf, membership of other leaves is α^{d(C,C')}, and internal concepts are fuzzy unions of children. Section 4 then defines composite-query embeddings element-wise from primitive embeddings, and retrieval is cosine similarity against the same stored primitive vectors. This is an intended query-evaluation model, not a parameter fitted to a held-out target: α=0.25 is chosen a priori, no external benchmark or ground-truth labels are used, and no 'prediction' is claimed to be independent of the embedding definition. The usage scenario in Section 5.4 is illustrative: its outputs are direct consequences of the same equations. The only self-citation, [23] (Demelo and Sedig; Sedig is a co-author), supplies background terminology for exploratory learning and is not load-bearing; no imported uniqueness theorem or ansatz-by-citation is present. The paper itself flags a related limitation in Section 6, noting that richer axioms beyond hierarchical subsumption would require enhancements. A separate correctness issue exists: Section 4.1 assumes tree-structured taxonomies, while Section 5.3.1 describes HPO as a DAG with multiple inheritance, so the α-embedding is underspecified for the demonstrated ontology. This is a rigor/validity problem, not circularity, and therefore does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on a synthetic fuzzy interpretation (α-embeddings) with hand-chosen parameters, rather than deriving membership from the ontology's full axiomatic structure. No new entities are postulated; the free parameters and axioms above are the load-bearing choices.

free parameters (3)
  • Decay parameter α = 0.25 (in usage scenario)
    Controls how fast membership decays with graph distance in the α-embedding; chosen by hand, no sensitivity analysis.
  • Number of sampled domain elements |ΔI| = not specified
    Determines embedding dimension; tunable in FALCON, but not stated for the usage scenario, so reproducibility is limited.
  • Choice of fuzzy t-norm = product (in usage scenario)
    The system allows product, Gödel, or Łukasiewicz t-norms; choice affects membership values and query results.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ontology is a tree-structured taxonomy for α-embeddings
    Section 4.1 assumes the ontology has a unique path from leaves to root; not all ontologies, including HPO, are strictly trees.
  • standard math Fuzzy union via probabilistic sum preserves subsumption
    Used in Section 4.1 to construct internal concept memberships; true for t-conorms, but only ensures subsumption, not other axioms.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity over membership vectors indicates semantic similarity
    Section 4 uses cosine similarity for top-k retrieval; no evidence that this correlates with human-judged relevance.
  • domain assumption Element-wise fuzzy operators correspond to intuitive logical operations
    Section 4 assumes product t-norm, probabilistic sum, and standard negator match user intent; operator alignment with the reasoner is not verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fuzzy Ontology Embeddings and Visual Query Building for Ontology Exploration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UHRWJ6YS

@misc{pith2026250808128,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fuzzy Ontology Embeddings and Visual Query Building for Ontology Exploration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UHRWJ6YS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.08128}
}
read the original abstract

Ontologies play a central role in structuring knowledge across domains, supporting tasks such as reasoning, data integration, and semantic search. However, their large size and complexity, particularly in fields such as biomedicine, computational biology, law, and engineering, make them difficult for non-experts to navigate. Formal query languages such as SPARQL offer expressive access but require users to understand the ontology's structure and syntax. In contrast, visual exploration tools and basic keyword-based search interfaces are easier to use but often lack flexibility and expressiveness. We introduce FuzzyVis, a proof-of-concept system that enables intuitive and expressive exploration of complex ontologies. FuzzyVis integrates two key components: a fuzzy logic-based querying model built on fuzzy ontology embeddings, and an interactive visual interface for building and interpreting queries. Users can construct new composite concepts by selecting and combining existing ontology concepts using logical operators such as conjunction, disjunction, and negation. These composite concepts are matched against the ontology using fuzzy membership-based embeddings, which capture degrees of membership and support approximate, concept-level similarity search. The visual interface supports browsing, query composition, and partial search without requiring formal syntax. By combining fuzzy semantics with embedding-based reasoning, FuzzyVis enables flexible interpretation, efficient computation, and exploratory learning. Case studies demonstrate how FuzzyVis supports subtle information needs and helps users uncover relevant concepts in large, complex ontologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.08128 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of the architecture of FuzzyVis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of FuzzyVis. A) The primary visualizations, B) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The primary visualization set to the treemap view. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The ontology selection menu. A number of options allow users to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The highlight panel and visualization controls of the leftmost [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The concept panel of the rightmost region of FuzzyVis. Used for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The query building panel of the rightmost region of FuzzyVis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The primary visualization set to the treemap view. The similar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tgviztab: An ontology visualisation extension for prot´ eg´ e

    Harith Alani. Tgviztab: An ontology visualisation extension for prot´ eg´ e. 2003

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Neuro-symbolic methods for knowledge graph embed- dings: A survey

    Dimitrios Alivanistos, Giorgos Papadakis, Themis Palpanas, and Mano- lis Koubarakis. Neuro-symbolic methods for knowledge graph embed- dings: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , 55(11):1–36, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Identifying clinical terms in medical text using ontology-guided machine learning

    Aryan Arbabi, David R Adams, Sanja Fidler, Michael Brudno, et al. Identifying clinical terms in medical text using ontology-guided machine learning. JMIR medical informatics , 7(2):e12596, 2019. 31

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Semantic integration of het- erogeneous databases of same domain using ontology

    Muhammad Asfand-E-Yar and Ramis Ali. Semantic integration of het- erogeneous databases of same domain using ontology. IEEE Access, 8:77903–77919, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology

    Michael Ashburner et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. the gene ontology consortium. Nature genetics , 25(1):25–29, 2000

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Query expansion tech- niques for information retrieval: a survey

    Hiteshwar Kumar Azad and Akshay Deepak. Query expansion tech- niques for information retrieval: a survey. Information Processing & Management, 56(5):1698–1735, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    The description logic handbook: Theory, implemen- tation, and applications

    Franz Baader. The description logic handbook: Theory, implemen- tation, and applications. Cambridge University Press google schola , 2:7–26, 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Ontotrix: a hybrid visualization for populated ontologies

    Benjamin Bach, Emmanuel Pietriga, Ilaria Liccardi, and Gennady Legostaev. Ontotrix: a hybrid visualization for populated ontologies. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference companion on World wide web , pages 177–180, 2011

    work page 2011

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    fuzzydl: An expressive fuzzy description logic reasoner

    Fernando Bobillo and Umberto Straccia. fuzzydl: An expressive fuzzy description logic reasoner. Proc. of the Int. Workshop on Fuzzy Logic and Applications (WILF) , pages 190–197, 2008

    2008

  2. [10]

    Fuzzy ontology represen- tation using owl 2

    Fernando Bobillo and Umberto Straccia. Fuzzy ontology represen- tation using owl 2. International journal of approximate reasoning , 52(7):1073–1094, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    Lode: linking legal open data

    Alexander Boer and Radboud Winkels. Lode: linking legal open data. Proceedings of the V legislative XML workshop , 2009

    2009

  4. [12]

    Translating embeddings for modeling multi- relational data

    Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. Translating embeddings for modeling multi- relational data. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26, 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    Serql: An rdf query and transformation language

    Jeen Broekstra, Arjohn Kampman, and Frank Van Harmelen. Serql: An rdf query and transformation language. In International Semantic Web Conference, pages 188–201. Springer, 2002

    2002

  6. [14]

    Lkif core: Principled ontology 32 development for the legal domain

    Jeen Broekstra, Michel C A Klein, Pieter De Leenheer, Rinke Hoekstra, Dieter Fensel, and Frank Van Harmelen. Lkif core: Principled ontology 32 development for the legal domain. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT) . 2009

    2009

  7. [15]

    The mastro system for ontology-based data access

    Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Domenico Lembo, Maurizio Lenzerini, Antonella Poggi, Mariano Rodriguez-Muro, Riccardo Rosati, Marco Ruzzi, and Domenico Fabio Savo. The mastro system for ontology-based data access. Semantic Web , 2(1):43–53, 2011

    2011

  8. [16]

    Eql-lite: Effective first-order query processing in description logics

    Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Domenico Lembo, Maurizio Lenzerini, Riccardo Rosati, et al. Eql-lite: Effective first-order query processing in description logics. In IJCAI, volume 7, pages 274–279, 2007

    2007

  9. [17]

    Owl2vec*: Embedding of owl on- tologies

    Jiaoyan Chen, Pan Hu, Ernesto Jimenez-Ruiz, Ole Magnus Holter, Den- var Antonyrajah, and Ian Horrocks. Owl2vec*: Embedding of owl on- tologies. Machine Learning, 110(7):1813–1845, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Ontology embedding: A survey of methods, applications and resources

    Jiaoyan Chen, Olga Mashkova, Fernando Zhapa-Camacho, Robert Hoehndorf, Yuan He, and Ian Horrocks. Ontology embedding: A survey of methods, applications and resources. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10964, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ontology embedding: a survey of methods, applications and resources

    Jiaoyan Chen, Olga Mashkova, Fernando Zhapa-Camacho, Robert Hoehndorf, Yuan He, and Ian Horrocks. Ontology embedding: a survey of methods, applications and resources. IEEE Transactions on Knowl- edge and Data Engineering , 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Chroma (chromadb): an open-source embed- ding/vector database, 2025

    Chroma contributors. Chroma (chromadb): an open-source embed- ding/vector database, 2025. Apache License 2.0

    2025

  13. [21]

    Obo-edit—an ontology editor for biologists

    John Day-Richter, Midori A Harris, Melissa Haendel, Gene Ontology OBO-Edit Working Group, and Suzanna Lewis. Obo-edit—an ontology editor for biologists. Bioinformatics, 23(16):2198–2200, 2007

    2007

  14. [22]

    Using ontologies for semantic data integration

    Giuseppe De Giacomo, Domenico Lembo, Maurizio Lenzerini, An- tonella Poggi, and Riccardo Rosati. Using ontologies for semantic data integration. A Comprehensive Guide Through the Italian Database Re- search Over the Last 25 Years , pages 187–202, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Forming cognitive maps of on- tologies using interactive visualizations

    Jonathan Demelo and Kamran Sedig. Forming cognitive maps of on- tologies using interactive visualizations. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 5(1):2, 2021. 33

    2021

  16. [24]

    Ontology visualization methods and tools: a survey of the state of the art

    Marek Dud´ aˇ s, Steffen Lohmann, Vojtˇ ech Sv´ atek, and Dmitry Pavlov. Ontology visualization methods and tools: a survey of the state of the art. The Knowledge Engineering Review , 33:e10, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    The sequence ontology: a tool for the unification of genome annotations

    Karen Eilbeck, Suzanna Lewis, Christopher Mungall, Mark Yandell, Lincoln Stein, Richard Durbin, and Michael Ashburner. The sequence ontology: a tool for the unification of genome annotations. Genome biology, 6(5):1–12, 2005

    2005

  18. [26]

    Reasoning with rules and ontologies

    Thomas Eiter, Giovambattista Ianni, Axel Polleres, Roman Schind- lauer, and Hans Tompits. Reasoning with rules and ontologies. Reason- ing Web: Second International Summer School 2006, Lisbon, Portugal, September 4-8, 2006, Tutorial Lectures 2 , pages 93–127, 2006

    2006

  19. [27]

    Residu- ated fuzzy logics with an involutive negation

    Francesc Esteva, Llu ´ ıs Godo, Petr H´ ajek, and Mirko Navara. Residu- ated fuzzy logics with an involutive negation. Archive for mathematical logic, 39(2):103–124, 2000

    2000

  20. [28]

    Owl-ql—a language for deductive query answering on the semantic web

    Richard Fikes, Patrick Hayes, and Ian Horrocks. Owl-ql—a language for deductive query answering on the semantic web. In Workshop on Meaning Coordination and Negotiation , 2004

    2004

  21. [29]

    Thomas Gabel, York Sure, and Johanna Voelker. D3. 1.1. a: Kaon– ontology management infrastructure. SEKT informal deliverable, 2004

    2004

  22. [30]

    Fuzzy description logics and t-norm based fuzzy logics

    `Angel Garcı, Eva Armengol, Francesc Esteva, et al. Fuzzy description logics and t-norm based fuzzy logics. International Journal of Approx- imate Reasoning, 51(6):632–655, 2010

    2010

  23. [31]

    The human phenotype ontology in 2024: phenotypes around the world

    Michael A Gargano, Nicolas Matentzoglu, Ben Coleman, Eunice B Addo-Lartey, Anna V Anagnostopoulos, et al. The human phenotype ontology in 2024: phenotypes around the world. Nucleic Acids Re- search, 52(D1):D1333–D1346, January 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    nrql: A new query language for racer

    Volker Haarslev, Ralf M¨ oller, and Michael Wessel. nrql: A new query language for racer. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics (DL) . CEUR-WS, 2004

    2004

  25. [33]

    Making fuzzy description logic more general

    Petr H´ ajek. Making fuzzy description logic more general. Fuzzy sets and systems , 154(1):1–15, 2005

    2005

  26. [34]

    Codex: explo- ration of semantic changes between ontology versions

    Michael Hartung, Anika Gross, and Erhard Rahm. Codex: explo- ration of semantic changes between ontology versions. Bioinformatics, 28(6):895–896, 2012. 34

    2012

  27. [35]

    The second naive physics

    Patrick J Hayes. The second naive physics. Readings in Qualitative Reasoning About Physical Systems, page 46, 2013

    2013

  28. [36]

    Scalable visualization of semantic nets using power-law graphs

    Ajaz Hussain, Khalid Latif, Aimal Tariq Rextin, Amir Hayat, and Ma- soon Alam. Scalable visualization of semantic nets using power-law graphs. Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences , 8(1):355, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Dual box em- beddings for the description logic el++

    Mathias Jackermeier, Jiaoyan Chen, and Ian Horrocks. Dual box em- beddings for the description logic el++. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 , pages 2250–2258, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Plant ontology (po): a controlled vocabulary of plant structures and growth stages

    Pankaj Jaiswal, Shulamit Avraham, Katica Ilic, Elizabeth A Kellogg, Susan McCouch, Anuradha Pujar, Leonore Reiser, Seung Y Rhee, Mar- tin M Sachs, Mary Schaeffer, et al. Plant ontology (po): a controlled vocabulary of plant structures and growth stages. Comparative and functio...

    2005

  31. [39]

    Billion-scale similarity search with gpus

    Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Herv´ e J´ egou. Billion-scale similarity search with gpus. IEEE Transactions on Big Data , 7(3):535–547, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax

    Graham Klyne and Jeremy J Carroll. Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax . W3C Recommendation, 2006

    2006

  33. [41]

    El embeddings: Geometric construction of models for the description logic el++

    Maxat Kulmanov, Wang Liu-Wei, Yuan Yan, and Robert Hoehndorf. El embeddings: Geometric construction of models for the description logic el++. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.10499 , 2019

    1902 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Owlready: Ontology-oriented programming in python with automatic classification and high level constructs for biomedical ontologies

    Jean-Baptiste Lamy. Owlready: Ontology-oriented programming in python with automatic classification and high level constructs for biomedical ontologies. Artificial intelligence in medicine , 80:11–28, 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

    Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph comple- tion

    Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph comple- tion. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 29, 2015

    2015

  36. [44]

    Jambalaya express: On- tology visualization-on-demand

    Robert Lintern and Margaret-Anne Storey. Jambalaya express: On- tology visualization-on-demand. In International Prot´ eg´ e Conference, pages 1–3. Citeseer, 2005

    2005

  37. [45]

    Lipscomb

    Susan E. Lipscomb. Medical subject headings (mesh). Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 88(3):265–266, 2000. 35

    2000

  38. [46]

    Webvowl: Web-based visualization of ontologies

    Steffen Lohmann, Vincent Link, Eduard Marbach, and Stefan Negru. Webvowl: Web-based visualization of ontologies. In Knowledge En- gineering and Knowledge Management: EKA W 2014 Satellite Events, VISUAL, EKM1, and ARCOE-Logic, Link¨ oping, Sweden, November 24-28, 2014. Revised ...

    2014

  39. [47]

    The prot´ eg´ evowl plugin: ontology visualization for everyone

    Steffen Lohmann, Stefan Negru, and David Bold. The prot´ eg´ evowl plugin: ontology visualization for everyone. In The Semantic Web: ESWC 2014 Satellite Events: ESWC 2014 Satellite Events, Anissaras, Crete, Greece, May 25-29, 2014, Revised Selected Papers 11, pages 395–

    2014

  40. [48]

    Owl web ontology language overview

    Deborah L McGuinness and Frank van Harmelen. Owl web ontology language overview. In W3C Recommendation, volume 10, page 2004, 2004

    2004

  41. [49]

    The prot´ eg´ e project: A look back and a look forward

    Mark A Musen. The prot´ eg´ e project: A look back and a look forward. AI Matters , 1(4):4–12, 2015

    2015

  42. [50]

    Delorean: A reasoner for fuzzy owl 2

    Rafael Pe˜ naloza, Fernando Bobillo, and Umberto Straccia. Delorean: A reasoner for fuzzy owl 2. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Fuzzy Logic and Applications (WILF) , pages 53–60, 2010

    2010

  43. [51]

    Eclap: an e-library for performing arts

    Dimitrios Rigas, Uldis Bojars, Lyndon Nixon, Mark Fishel, Genevieve Roberge, Monica Preda, Christos Sidiropoulos, Alexandros Kouk- ourikos, Rafal Bembenik, Mateusz Kotarski, et al. Eclap: an e-library for performing arts. In 2012 International Conference on Emerging Intelligen...

    2012

  44. [52]

    Rdf2vec: Rdf graph embeddings for data mining

    Petar Ristoski and Heiko Paulheim. Rdf2vec: Rdf graph embeddings for data mining. In International semantic web conference, pages 498–514. Springer, 2016

    2016

  45. [53]

    Human disease ontology 2018 update: classification, content and workflow expansion

    Lynn M Schriml, Elvira Mitraka, James Munro, Ruth Tauber, Michelle Schor, Lydia Nickle, Veronica Felix, Lily Jeng, Carly Bearer, Rachel Lichenstein, et al. Human disease ontology 2018 update: classification, content and workflow expansion. Nucleic acids research, 47(D1):D955– ...

    2018

  46. [54]

    SPARQL 1.1 query language

    Andy Seaborne and Steven Harris. SPARQL 1.1 query language. W3C recommendation, W3C, March 2013. https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-query-20130321/. 36

    2013

  47. [55]

    Sparql-dl: Sparql query for owl-dl

    Evren Sirin and Bijan Parsia. Sparql-dl: Sparql query for owl-dl. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions (OWLED). CEUR-WS, 2007

    2007

  48. [56]

    Smith, Carolina Nobre, and Alexander Lex

    Lauren E. Smith, Carolina Nobre, and Alexander Lex. Graffinity: Vi- sualizing connectivity in large graphs. In Proceedings of the IEEE Con- ference on Visualization (VIS) , pages 1–5. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  49. [57]

    A fuzzy description logic

    Umberto Straccia. A fuzzy description logic. In AAAI/IAAI, pages 594–599, 1998

    1998

  50. [58]

    Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space

    Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. In International Conference on Learning Representations

  51. [59]

    Falcon: faithful neural semantic entailment over alc ontologies

    Zhenwei Tang, Tilman Hinnerichs, Xi Peng, Xiangliang Zhang, and Robert Hoehndorf. Falcon: faithful neural semantic entailment over alc ontologies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.07628 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Automatic fuzzy ontology generation for semantic web

    Quan Thanh Tho, Siu Cheung Hui, Alvis Cheuk M Fong, and Tru Hoang Cao. Automatic fuzzy ontology generation for semantic web. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering , 18(6):842–856, 2006

    2006

  53. [61]

    Owlpropviz, 2008

    Lutz Wachsmann. Owlpropviz, 2008

    2008

  54. [62]

    Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes

    Zhen Wang, Jianwen Zhang, Jianlin Feng, and Zheng Chen. Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 28, 2014

    2014

  55. [63]

    Cate: Embedding alc ontologies using category-theoretical semantics

    Fernando Zhapa-Camacho and Robert Hoehndorf. Cate: Embedding alc ontologies using category-theoretical semantics. 2023. 37

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.