pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.22093 · v1 · pith:G5343HYNnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 💻 cs.AI

Knowledge Graph Re-engineering Along the Ontological Continuum (extended version)

Enrico Daga , Valentina Tamma , Terry Payne This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 05:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords knowledge graphsontological continuumre-engineeringsemanticspragmaticspropertiesaffordancesformal concept analysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

The ontological continuum organizes knowledge graph practices using two distinctions: semantics versus pragmatics and properties versus affordances.

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

Knowledge graphs range widely from lightweight vocabularies to richly axiomatised ontologies, which makes their integration and reuse costly for modern AI systems. The paper introduces the ontological continuum as a theoretical construct to address this diversity without prescribing any single modeling style. Its framework rests on two orthogonal distinctions that supply a shared vocabulary for describing, comparing, navigating, and transforming graphs. The stance is empirical, building a theory of observed practices rather than ideal ones, and the idea is illustrated by showing how provenance concerns appear differently at each point along the continuum. A reader would care because the construct aims to ground automated re-engineering, especially when generative AI is used to adapt graphs for neuro-symbolic applications.

Core claim

The paper introduces the ontological continuum as the missing conceptualisation for knowledge graph modeling, a theoretical construct whose characterisation framework is defined by two orthogonal distinctions—semantics versus pragmatics, and properties versus affordances—together supplying a vocabulary to describe, compare, navigate, and transform KGs across the full range of modelling practices. The methodological stance is empirical rather than prescriptive: the continuum seeks to define a theory of the existent derived from observation of real-world KG engineering practices, whose structure can be made formally explicit through methods such as Formal Concept Analysis. The vision is shown,

What carries the argument

The ontological continuum, a theoretical construct defined by the two orthogonal distinctions of semantics versus pragmatics and properties versus affordances that supplies a vocabulary for describing and transforming knowledge graphs.

If this is right

  • Knowledge graph integration and reuse become less expensive and brittle when graphs can be compared and transformed along the continuum.
  • Re-engineering of graphs to meet new requirements becomes more systematic in neuro-symbolic AI settings.
  • Generative AI tools for knowledge graph adaptation gain a principled conceptual grounding instead of remaining unguided.
  • Formal Concept Analysis can be used to make the structure of observed practices explicit and computable.
  • Five open research challenges are set out for the community to develop the continuum further.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework could support empirical classification studies that map large repositories of existing knowledge graphs onto the continuum.
  • Similar continua might be constructed for other structured data representations that face comparable integration problems.
  • Automated tools could be developed to detect a graph's position on the continuum and suggest minimal transformations to a target position.

Load-bearing premise

The two distinctions between semantics and pragmatics and between properties and affordances are sufficient to capture and organize the full observed diversity of real-world knowledge graph modeling practices.

What would settle it

A systematic survey of deployed knowledge graphs that identifies modeling practices requiring additional distinctions beyond semantics-pragmatics and properties-affordances to be described or transformed would falsify the claim that the two distinctions suffice.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22093 by Enrico Daga, Terry Payne, Valentina Tamma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FCA lattice: pragmatic affordances. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FCA lattice: pragmatic properties. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FCA lattice: semantic affordances. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FCA lattice: semantic properties. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Knowledge graphs have become the primary vehicle for data integration and are critical to the success of modern AI, but the diversity of KG modelling practices, from lightweight vocabularies to richly axiomatised ontologies, makes integration and reuse expensive and brittle. This challenge is particularly acute in neuro-symbolic AI, where bridging neural and symbolic components depends on the ability to reengineer KGs to fit new requirements; GenAI now offers unprecedented automation capability, but without a principled understanding of the KG space, such automation remains conceptually ungrounded. We introduce the ontological continuum as that missing conceptualisation, a theoretical construct a theoretical construct whose characterisation framework is defined by two orthogonal distinctions: semantics vs pragmatics, and properties vs affordances; together these define a vocabulary to describe, compare, navigate, and transform KGs across the full range of modelling practices. The methodological stance is empirical: rather than prescribing how KGs should be modelled, the continuum aims to define a theory of the existent, derived from observation of real-world KG engineering practices and whose structure can be made formally explicit, for example, through Formal Concept Analysis (FCA). We ground the vision through a case study on provenance knowledge, showing how a single concern manifests differently across the continuum. We articulate five open research challenges and invite the community to develop the ontological continuum as a shared research agenda.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the ontological continuum as a theoretical construct to address the diversity of knowledge graph (KG) modeling practices. The framework is characterized by two orthogonal distinctions: semantics versus pragmatics, and properties versus affordances. These distinctions are intended to provide a vocabulary for describing, comparing, navigating, and transforming KGs. The approach is empirical, based on observation of real-world practices, with potential formalization via Formal Concept Analysis (FCA). It is grounded by a case study on provenance knowledge and ends with five open research challenges.

Significance. If the proposed framework proves effective, it could provide a much-needed conceptual tool for KG re-engineering in AI applications, particularly neuro-symbolic systems. The paper's strengths include its empirical methodological stance, which avoids prescriptivism, and its explicit articulation of open challenges to foster community development. This positions the work as a starting point for an empirical theory of KG modeling practices.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The claim that the two distinctions are sufficient to capture the observed diversity of real-world KG modeling practices is central to the proposal but is only illustrated at a high level in the provenance case study; additional concrete mappings or examples would help substantiate that the framework can support transformation across the continuum.
  2. [Case Study] The case study on provenance demonstrates differential manifestation but lacks detail on how the distinctions enable specific re-engineering steps, which is load-bearing for the utility in neuro-symbolic AI contexts mentioned in the introduction.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: the phrase 'a theoretical construct' is repeated consecutively as 'a theoretical construct a theoretical construct'.
  2. [Throughout] Clarify the definitions of 'affordances' and 'pragmatics' in the context of KGs, possibly with references to related literature in ontology engineering.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and recommendation for minor revision. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the major comments.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The claim that the two distinctions are sufficient to capture the observed diversity of real-world KG modeling practices is central to the proposal but is only illustrated at a high level in the provenance case study; additional concrete mappings or examples would help substantiate that the framework can support transformation across the continuum.

    Authors: We note that the abstract summarizes the contribution, and the sufficiency of the two distinctions is positioned as a hypothesis derived from empirical observation rather than a fully validated claim. The provenance case study serves to illustrate differential manifestation for a single concern. To strengthen substantiation of transformation support, we will add concrete mappings for two further KG scenarios (e.g., entity linking and schema alignment) in the revised case study section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Case Study] The case study on provenance demonstrates differential manifestation but lacks detail on how the distinctions enable specific re-engineering steps, which is load-bearing for the utility in neuro-symbolic AI contexts mentioned in the introduction.

    Authors: The case study is deliberately scoped to demonstrate differential manifestation across the continuum in order to ground the distinctions empirically. Specific re-engineering steps are not detailed because they form part of the five open research challenges explicitly listed in the paper; the distinctions are intended to provide conceptual guidance for such steps rather than prescriptive procedures. We will revise the case study to include a high-level outline of how the distinctions can inform re-engineering choices while clarifying that full operationalization remains future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; framework presented as empirical observation

full rationale

The paper introduces the ontological continuum as an independent theoretical construct derived from observation of real-world KG modelling practices, using two orthogonal distinctions (semantics vs pragmatics; properties vs affordances) to supply a descriptive vocabulary. It explicitly adopts an empirical stance, aims to define a theory of the existent rather than prescribe rules, notes that the structure can be made formally explicit (e.g., via FCA), and lists five open research challenges. No equations, fitted parameters, self-referential definitions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation; the central claim remains a provisional conceptual framework grounded in observed diversity rather than reducing to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper rests on the domain assumption that real-world KG practices can be observed to yield an empirical theory and introduces the ontological continuum as the central new entity without external falsifiable handles beyond the single case study.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The distinctions semantics vs pragmatics and properties vs affordances are orthogonal and jointly sufficient to characterize the space of KG modeling practices.
    Invoked directly in the definition of the characterisation framework in the abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • Ontological continuum no independent evidence
    purpose: To supply a vocabulary for describing, comparing, navigating, and transforming knowledge graphs across modeling practices.
    New theoretical construct introduced to address the integration challenge; no independent falsifiable evidence is supplied beyond the provenance case study.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5768 in / 1461 out tokens · 68587 ms · 2026-05-22T05:59:22.687290+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Applied Ontology16(1), 1–38 (2021)

    de Almeida, J.P.A., Fonseca, C.M., Guizzardi, G.: A lightweight version of the Unified Foundational Ontology for the Semantic Web. Applied Ontology16(1), 1–38 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    ACM Transactions on Internet Technology23(1) (2023)

    Asprino, L., Daga, E., Gangemi, A., Mulholland, P.: Knowledge graph construction with a façade: A unified method to access heterogeneous data sources on the web. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology23(1) (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Abu-Hashem, Mohammad Shehab, Qusai Shambour, and Riham Muqat.Nonvolatile Memory-Based Internet of Things: A Survey, pages 285–304

    Auer, S., Bizer, C., Kobilarov, G., Lehmann, J., Cyganiak, R., Ives, Z.G.: DBpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data. In: The Semantic Web, 6th International Se- mantic Web Conference, ISWC 2007 + ASWC 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4825, pp. 722–735. Springer (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 540-76298-0\_52

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3- 2007

  4. [4]

    Applied ontology17(1), 45–69 (2022)

    Borgo, S., Ferrario, R., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Porello, D., San- filippo, E.M., Vieu, L.: Dolce: A descriptive ontology for linguistic and cognitive engineering. Applied ontology17(1), 45–69 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    In: The Semantic Web: Semantics and Big Data

    Callahan, A., Cruz-Toledo, J., Ansell, P., Dumontier, M.: Bio2RDF release 2: Im- proved coverage, interoperability and provenance of life science linked data. In: The Semantic Web: Semantics and Big Data. ESWC 2013. pp. 200–212 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38288-8_14

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38288-8_14 2013

  6. [6]

    Celino, I.: Knowledge affordances for hybrid human-ai information seeking (2026), https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.27539

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association28(9), 2017–2026 (2021)

    Chang, E., Mostafa, J.: The use of snomed ct, 2013-2020: a literature review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association28(9), 2017–2026 (2021)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Nucleic acids research47(D1), D330–D338 (2019)

    Consortium, G.O.: The gene ontology resource: 20 years and still going strong. Nucleic acids research47(D1), D330–D338 (2019)

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    W3c recommendation, W3C (September 2012), https://www.w3.org/TR/r2rml/, available at https://www.w3.org/TR/r2rml/

    Das, S., Sundara, S., Cyganiak, R.: R2RML: RDB to RDF Mapping Language. W3c recommendation, W3C (September 2012), https://www.w3.org/TR/r2rml/, available at https://www.w3.org/TR/r2rml/

    work page 2012

  10. [10]

    https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/ (2020)

    Dublin Core Metadata Initiative: DCMI metadata terms. https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/ (2020)

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    EuropeanCommission:DCAT-AP:DCATapplicationprofilefordataportalsineu- rope, version 2.0.1. Tech. rep., Interoperable Europe (2020), https://interoperable- europe.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/distribution/access_url/2020- 06/e4823478-4458-4546-9a85-3609867ad089/DCAT_AP_2.0.1.pdf

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Semantic Web14(1), 1–13 (2023) KG Re-engineering Along the Ontological Continuum 11

    Faria, D., Santos, E., Balasubramani, B.S., Silva, M.C., Couto, F.M., Pesquita, C.: Agreementmakerlight. Semantic Web14(1), 1–13 (2023) KG Re-engineering Along the Ontological Continuum 11

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the ISWC 2009 Workshop on Ontology Patterns

    Gangemi, A., Presutti, V.: Ontology design patterns for linked data publishing. In: Proceedings of the ISWC 2009 Workshop on Ontology Patterns. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 516 (2009)

    work page 2009

  14. [14]

    Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (1999)

    Ganter, B., Wille, R.: Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (1999)

    work page 1999

  15. [15]

    In: The Semantic Web-ISWC (2024)

    Garijo, D., Poveda-Villalón, M., Amador-Domínguez, E., Wang, Z., García-Castro, R., Corcho, O.: Llms for ontology engineering: a landscape of tasks and benchmark- ing challenges. In: The Semantic Web-ISWC (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    In: Shaw, R.E., Bransford, J

    Gibson, J.J.: The theory of affordances. In: Shaw, R.E., Bransford, J. (eds.) Per- ceiving,acting,andknowing:Towardanecologicalpsychology,pp.67–82.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1977)

    work page 1977

  17. [17]

    Google:Datacommonsdatamodel.https://docs.datacommons.org/data_model.html (2024)

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Information Services and Use30(1–2), 51–56 (2010)

    Groth, P., Gibson, A., Velterop, J.: The anatomy of a nanopublication. Information Services and Use30(1–2), 51–56 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2010-0613

    work page doi:10.3233/isu-2010-0613 2010

  19. [19]

    Communications of the ACM59(2), 44–51 (2016)

    Guha, R.V., Brickley, D., MacBeth, S.: Schema.org: Evolution of struc- tured data on the web. Communications of the ACM59(2), 44–51 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2844544

    work page doi:10.1145/2844544 2016

  20. [20]

    Applied ontology17(1), 167– 210 (2022)

    Guizzardi, G., Botti Benevides, A., Fonseca, C.M., Porello, D., Almeida, J.P.A., Prince Sales, T.: Ufo: Unified foundational ontology. Applied ontology17(1), 167– 210 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    W3c community group report, W3C (2021), https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg- spec/

    Hartig,O.,Champin,P.A.,Kellogg,G.,Seaborne,A.:RDF-starandSPARQL-star. W3c community group report, W3C (2021), https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg- spec/

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications (2011), http://eprints.cs.univie.ac.at/2919/1/haslhofer_isaac_dataeuropana_camera_ready.pdf

    Haslhofer, B., Isaac, A.: data.europeana.eu — the Europeana linked open data pilot. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications (2011), http://eprints.cs.univie.ac.at/2919/1/haslhofer_isaac_dataeuropana_camera_ready.pdf

    work page 2011

  23. [23]

    Hernández, D., Hogan, A., Krötzsch, M.: Reifying RDF: What works well with Wikidata? In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Scalable Se- mantic Web Knowledge Base Systems (SSWS). pp. 32–47 (2015)

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    In: Proceedings of the 12th knowledge capture conference 2023

    Hertling, S., Paulheim, H.: Olala: Ontology matching with large language models. In: Proceedings of the 12th knowledge capture conference 2023. pp. 131–139 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    ISO/IEC: Information technology — top-level ontologies (TLO) — part 2: Basic Formal Ontology (BFO). Tech. Rep. ISO/IEC 21838-2:2021, International Orga- nization for Standardization (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    BMC Bioinformatics20(1), 407 (2019)

    Jackson, R., Balhoff, J.P., Douglass, E., Harris, N.L., Mungall, C.J., Overton, J.A.: ROBOT: A tool for automating ontology workflows. BMC Bioinformatics20(1), 407 (2019)

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development (KEOD 2013)

    Khan, Z.C., Keet, C.M.: ROMULUS: A repository of modular upper-level speci- fications for promoting reuse. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development (KEOD 2013). pp. 133–144 (2013)

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    W3c recom- mendation, W3C (2013), https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/

    Lebo, T., Sahoo, S., McGuinness, D.: PROV-O: The PROV ontology. W3c recom- mendation, W3C (2013), https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering35(5) (2023)

    LeClair, A., Marinache, A., El Ghalayini, H., MacCaull, W., Khedri, R.: A review on ontology modularization techniques - a multi-dimensional perspec- tive. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering35(5) (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2022.3152928 12 E. Daga et al

    work page doi:10.1109/tkde.2022.3152928 2023

  30. [30]

    W3C member submission22(4) (2004)

    Martin, D., Burstein, M., Hobbs, J., Lassila, O., McDermott, D., McIlraith, S., Narayanan, S., Paolucci, M., Parsia, B., Payne, T., et al.: Owl-s: Semantic markup for web services. W3C member submission22(4) (2004)

    work page 2004

  31. [31]

    In: Proceedings of the CAiSE 2026 International Conference on Ad- vanced Information System Engineering (2026), https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01728

    Morlidge, W., Watkiss-Leek, E., Hannah, G., Rostron, H., Ng, A., Johnson, E., Mitchell, A., Payne, T.R., Tamma, V., de Berardinis, J.: The animl ontology: En- abling semantic interoperability for large-scale experimental data in interconnected scientific labs. In: Proceedings of the CAiSE 2026 International Conference on Ad- vanced Information System Engi...

    work page arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Interactions6(3), 38–43 (1999), https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/301153.301168

    Norman, D.A.: Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions6(3), 38–43 (1999), https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/301153.301168

    work page doi:10.1145/301153.301168 1999

  33. [33]

    Applied on- tology17(1), 17–43 (2022)

    Otte, J.N., Beverley, J., Ruttenberg, A.: Bfo: Basic formal ontology. Applied on- tology17(1), 17–43 (2022)

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Payne, T.R., Tamma, V., Daga, E.: Discoverable agent knowledge – a formal framework for agentic kg affordances (extended version) (2026), https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.19186

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Expert systems with applica- tions40(16), 6538–6560 (2013)

    Poelmans, J., Ignatov, D.I., Kuznetsov, S.O., Dedene, G.: Formal concept analysis in knowledge processing: A survey on applications. Expert systems with applica- tions40(16), 6538–6560 (2013)

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    Semantic Web15(6), 2639–2693 (2024)

    Portisch, J., Hladik, M., Paulheim, H.: Background knowledge in ontology match- ing: A survey. Semantic Web15(6), 2639–2693 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Engineer- ing Applications of Artificial Intelligence111(2022)

    Poveda-Villalón, M., Fernández-Izquierdo, A., Fernández-López, M., García- Castro, R.: Lot: An industrial oriented ontology engineering framework. Engineer- ing Applications of Artificial Intelligence111(2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    In: Proceedings of the 20th Euro- pean Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI)

    Ruiz, E.J., Grau, B.C., Zhou, Y., Horrocks, I.: Large-scale interactive ontology matching: Algorithms and implementation. In: Proceedings of the 20th Euro- pean Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI). pp. 444–449. IOS Press (2012). https://doi.org/doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-098-7-444

    work page doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-098-7-444 2012

  39. [39]

    Data & Knowledge Engi- neering99, 72–104 (2015)

    Sales, T.P., Guizzardi, G.: Ontological anti-patterns: empirically uncovered error- prone structures in ontology-driven conceptual models. Data & Knowledge Engi- neering99, 72–104 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2015.06.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.datak.2015.06.004 2015

  40. [40]

    https://www.semanticarts.com/gist/ (2023)

    Semantic Arts: gist upper ontology. https://www.semanticarts.com/gist/ (2023)

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    In: Proceedings of the 18th International Seman- tic Web Conference, ISWC 2019

    Sequeda, J.F., Briggs, W.J., Miranker, D.P., Heideman, W.P.: A pay- as-you-go methodology to design and build enterprise knowledge graphs from relational databases. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Seman- tic Web Conference, ISWC 2019. Springer International Publishing (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30796-7_32

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30796-7_32 2019

  42. [42]

    Semantic Web 14(3) (2023)

    Shimizu, C., Hammar, K., Hitzler, P.: Modular ontology modeling. Semantic Web 14(3) (2023)

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    In: Ontology engineering in a networked world

    Suárez-Figueroa, M.C., Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández-López, M.: The neon method- ology for ontology engineering. In: Ontology engineering in a networked world. Springer (2011)

    work page 2011

  44. [44]

    https://researchspace.org (2023)

    The British Museum: ResearchSpace. https://researchspace.org (2023)

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac1052

    The UniProt Consortium: UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase in 2023 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac1052

    work page doi:10.1093/nar/gkac1052 2023

  46. [46]

    Semantic Web8(3), 437–452 (2017)

    Vandenbussche, P.Y., Atemezing, G.A., Poveda-Villalón, M., Vatant, B.: Linked open vocabularies (LOV): A gateway to reusable semantic vocabularies on the Web. Semantic Web8(3), 437–452 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-160213

    work page doi:10.3233/sw-160213 2017

  47. [47]

    Com- munications of the ACM57(10), 78–85 (2014)

    Vrandečić, D., Krötzsch, M.: Wikidata: A free collaborative knowledgebase. Com- munications of the ACM57(10), 78–85 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2629489

    work page doi:10.1145/2629489 2014

  48. [48]

    Data Façades Community Group (Accessed, May 2026), https://www.w3.org/community/facade-x/ KG Re-engineering Along the Ontological Continuum 13

    work page 2026

  49. [49]

    Information Systems37(1), 33–60 (2012) 14 E

    Wang,H.H.,Gibbins,N.,Payne,T.R.,Redavid,D.:Aformalmodelofthesemantic web service ontology (wsmo). Information Systems37(1), 33–60 (2012) 14 E. Daga et al. T able 1.Provenance features of the ten knowledge graphs across the four characteri- sation dimensions. Each cell lists the features exhibited by that KG in that dimension. Generated from the same data ...

    work page 2012