Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 114 references

Structured metric definitions can be reused as context to extend an ontology, and the paper shows that metric-derived text beats ontology-only context for relation type prediction and data property assignment on a cybersecurity use case.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 04:43 UTC pith:7S5IIFBQ

load-bearing objection Useful framework and an honestly-written RQ1, but the headline claim rests on 10/28 test cases, no significance test, and one self-referential corpus. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.29553 v1 pith:7S5IIFBQ submitted 2026-07-31 cs.AI

COntExt: Towards Context-Aware Ontology Extension from Operational Metrics

Hussain Hussain , Stefan Sch\"oberl , Angelika Schneider , Verena Geist This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords ontology extensioncontext enrichmentoperational metricsmetric cataloguesparent class predictionrelation type predictiondata property assignmentcybersecurity ontology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that the operational metrics an organization already writes down—YAML files describing how to measure security, compliance, or performance—can be reused to keep its formal ontology up to date. COntExt splits ontology extension into three prediction tasks and injects metric text (descriptions, comments, configuration values) as context into language-model scorers. On the CertGraph cybersecurity ontology, metric-derived context outperformed ontology-only context for relation type prediction (MRR 0.21 → 0.27) and data property assignment (accuracy 0.71 → 0.82), but it degraded parent class prediction (MRR 0.49 → 0.34). The broader claim is that operational metric catalogues are an underexploited bridge between operational knowledge and formal ontologies, allowing lower-cost, semi-automated ontology maintenance. A sympathetic reader would note that the context-enrichment evidence rests on a single (ontology, metric) pair with very small test sets, but the direction is new and the framework itself is algorithm-agnostic.

Core claim

COntExt formalizes ontology extension as three sub-tasks—parent class prediction, relation type prediction, and data property assignment—and treats metric definitions as a first-class input. Its key empirical claim is that enriching suggestions with metric-derived context (descriptions, comments, configuration values) improves ranked suggestions over both no-context and ontology-comment baselines for relation type prediction and data property assignment, while the same context hurts parent class prediction. The evidence comes from a leave-one-out protocol on CertGraph: metric description raises relation-type MRR from 0.21 to 0.27, and metric comment raises data-property accuracy from 0.71 to

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is context enrichment: before scoring, the framework concatenates a concept's bare name with text from the metric definition (description, comments, configuration values) or from ontology annotations, and feeds the resulting prompt into a language-model scorer such as ChildAgg or masked-language-model prompting. The framework itself is algorithm-agnostic; its decomposition of ontology extension into parent class prediction, relation type prediction, and data property assignment is what lets the same metric corpus serve different extension needs. The prompts act as the bridge that turns prose in YAML metric files into ranking signals.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the metric-context benefit—measured on a single pair, the CertGraph ontology and its 64-metric cybersecurity catalogue, with only 10 relation cases and 28 property cases—generalizes to other ontologies and metric corpora; if CertGraph's YAML schema and prose style are atypical, the claimed improvement could be an artifact of that one corpus.

What would settle it

Run the same leave-one-out protocol on a second (ontology, metric catalogue) pair in a different domain—for example an IoT ontology paired with its metric definitions—and check whether metric description/comment still beats ontology-only context on relation-type MRR and data-property accuracy. If the gains disappear, the central claim is specific to CertGraph; alternatively, remove the configuration block from metric context and see whether the data-property accuracy gain from 0.71 to 0.82 collapses.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Organizations that already maintain metric catalogues can feed them through COntExt to get ranked suggestions for where a new class belongs, how it relates to existing classes, and which class owns a property—starting ontology updates from suggestions instead of from scratch.
  • The framework separates the extension problem into three tasks, so teams can adopt it selectively where metric context helps (relations and properties) and rely on structure-only methods where it hurts (parent placement).
  • Because COntExt is algorithm-agnostic and accepts any formal ontology, the same metric-to-context enrichment can be reused with better scorers or LLM-based components as they mature.
  • If the effect replicates beyond CertGraph, metric catalogues become a first-class input to ontology evolution, removing the need for engineers to re-transcribe operational knowledge into formal axioms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the parent-class degradation is probably a context-type mismatch—metric prose describes relations and configurations, not subclass placement—so a production system could route each task to the context source that best matches its semantics.
  • Editorial inference: the data-property gains may be partly driven by configuration values (booleans, thresholds) leaking datatype information into the prompt; ablating the configuration block would separate prose effects from typing clues.
  • Editorial inference: since only template-based scorers were context-enriched, adapting structural methods (e.g., translating-embedding models) to ingest metric prose is a natural next test; if they also gain, the result is not an artifact of masked-language-model prompting.
  • Editorial inference: the hand-designed prompt templates could be replaced by automatically constructed prompts from metric fields, which would let the framework transfer to new domains without manual template tuning.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents COntExt, an algorithm-agnostic framework that uses structured operational metric definitions (e.g., YAML metric catalogues) as contextual input for ontology extension. The extension problem is decomposed into three sub-tasks: parent class prediction, relation type prediction, and data property assignment. The authors evaluate several algorithms for each task on seven ontologies spanning four domains (RQ1), and then evaluate whether adding ontology- or metric-derived context improves suggestion quality on the CertGraph ontology and its associated security-metric corpus (RQ2). The paper's central claim is that metric-derived context improves suggestions over ontology-context baselines for relation type prediction and data property assignment, while it degrades parent class prediction.

Significance. If the central claim is validated, the paper demonstrates a practical, low-friction source of context for ontology maintenance: organizations that already maintain structured metric catalogues could reuse them to semi-automatically extend their ontologies. The paper has several strengths: the framework decomposition is clear; the source code is publicly available; RQ1 uses paired approximate-randomization tests and honestly reports that most algorithm differences are statistical ties rather than overclaiming; and the single-pair limitation for RQ2 is explicitly acknowledged in Section 5.2. However, the load-bearing RQ2 evidence is thin, is not significance-tested, and is limited to one (ontology, metric corpus) pair developed by the authors' group. The significance of the work therefore depends on strengthening the statistical support and on appropriately scaling the claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.6.2, Tables 6–7] RQ2's central claim is not supported by significance testing. The paper defines a paired approximate-randomization test in §4.4 that is paired at the level of masked cases and does not require multiple training seeds. The statement in §4.6.2 that there is 'no setup for multiple random seeds' therefore does not justify omitting the test. With only 10 Task 2 cases and 28 Task 3 cases, the reported 0.06 MRR gain (0.21→0.27) and 0.11 accuracy gain (0.71→0.82) can be driven by one to three cases. The authors should run the defined permutation test on RQ2, report per-case differences, and provide confidence intervals, or explicitly label these results as exploratory.
  2. [§4.6.2, Tables 6–7; §5.1] The headline gains are selected post hoc from four metric-context variants. The conclusion chooses '+ Metric description' for Task 2 and '+ Metric comment' for Task 3. Under the framework's own 'All context (metric + ontology)' condition, the gains essentially disappear: Task 2 MRR goes from 0.21 to 0.22 (+0.01), and Task 3 accuracy is 0.68, below the 0.71 no-context baseline and only +0.04 over ontology comments. Because multiple context variants are compared without correction, the abstract's claim that 'metric-derived context improves the suggestions' is not established by the selected best-field comparison. The authors should report all variants with the §4.4 significance test, or treat the per-field gains as hypothesis-generating.
  3. [§4.3, §4.6.2, §5.2; Abstract] The RQ2 evidence rests on a single (ontology, metric corpus) pair: CertGraph and the authors' own security-metric catalogue (Schöberl et al., 2024). The test cases are exactly the concepts mentioned in those metric files. This creates a real risk that the measured benefit reflects the particular YAML schema, prose style, and author-aligned terminology of that one corpus, rather than a general property of operational metric catalogues. Section 5.2 acknowledges the limitation, but the Abstract and Conclusion nevertheless state the general claim that 'operational metric catalogues are a practical and underexploited source for ontology extension.' The authors should either add at least one independent (ontology, metric corpus) pair or restrict the central claim to a proof-of-concept for CertGraph-like catalogues.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract in the submitted text says 'across seven ontologies spanning four domains,' while the shorter version in the provided metadata says 'across four cybersecurity ontologies.' The abstract should match the body of the paper.
  2. [§4.6.2] The sentence 'there is no setup for multiple random seeds' is misleading because the heuristic methods (ChildAgg and MLM prompting) are deterministic in inference mode; the issue is not seed variance but missing case-level significance testing.
  3. [§5.2] Typo: 'efficiently' and 'efficiency' use a non-standard 'ff' ligature and should be 'efficiently' and 'efficiency'.
  4. [Table 1] The table lists 'Classes with Attributes' counts but the body of §4.6.1 explains exclusions only in prose; a short note under Table 1 or Table 4 would clarify why Pizza, CSOsec, and FIBO_BE are absent from Task 3.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

RQ2 metric-context gains are built from test cases selected out of the same metric files that supply the context, so the headline improvement is partly forced by construction.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.6.2]
    "For RQ2, only the concepts, relations, and properties that are mentioned in the metric files are considered for evaluation. ... we limit the test set in this experiment to the classes and properties mentioned in the metric catalogue associated with CertGraph – resulting in 81 cases for Task 1, 10 cases for Task 2, and 28 cases for Task 3. ... description: This rule assesses whether a [Resource] has [TransportEncryption] [p1:enabled] correctly configured."

    The RQ2 test set is defined as exactly those concepts/relations/properties that appear in the metric catalogue, and the same metric catalogue's description/comment text is then used as the enrichment context for the prediction. In the paper's own example, the metric description textually contains the Task 3 answer: the correct owner class [TransportEncryption] and the property [p1:enabled] appear in the same sentence ('... has [TransportEncryption] [p1:enabled] ...'). The MLM prompt is prepended with this text, so the 'prediction' reduces to a lexical co-occurrence lookup. For Task 2, the metric sentence similarly expresses a relation between the queried classes. Thus the reported RQ2 gains (0.21→0.27 MRR; 0.71→0.82 accuracy) are forced by the test-set construction: the evaluation target i

full rationale

RQ1 (algorithm comparison across seven ontologies) is self-contained and not circular: it uses leave-one-out masking on external ontologies with paired permutation tests and seed checks. The circularity is localized to RQ2, which is the sole support for the abstract's claim that metric-derived context improves suggestions for relation type prediction and data property assignment. RQ2 restricts the test set to concepts, relations, and properties that are mentioned in the metric catalogue, and then uses that same catalogue's description/comment text as the enrichment context. In the published example, the metric description contains both the class and property that constitute the Task 3 label ('[Resource] has [TransportEncryption] [p1:enabled]'), so the correct owner is textually present in the prompt. Similarly for Task 2, the metric sentence expresses the relation between the two queried classes. The reported gains therefore reflect the fact that the test set was defined by the same artifact used as the predictive feature, not an independent generalization. The limitation section acknowledges the single-pair setting but does not address this construction. The CertGraph self-citation is a dataset citation, not a load-bearing proof, and is not counted as circularity itself. The lack of significance testing for RQ2 is a validity concern but not a circularity concern; it does not affect this score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework contributes no new formal axioms or fitted physical constants. Its load-bearing assumptions are about data representativeness and evaluation validity. The main circularity risk is that the only metric-enriched benchmark was built by the same authors.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Operational metric definitions encode domain knowledge consistent with a formal ontology.
    Assumed in §1 and §3; the framework's value depends on metric prose aligning with ontology semantics, and this is only tested on CertGraph.
  • domain assumption Leave-one-out recovery of the current ontology structure is a valid proxy for future extension needs.
    §4.4 states the protocol 'avoids the need for manually labelled ground truth'; this equates existing structure with the correct extension target.
  • domain assumption The CertGraph ontology and its metric catalogue are representative of other organizations' ontology/metric pairs.
    Needed for the general 'practical and underexploited source' conclusion; contradicted by the single-pair limitation acknowledged in §5.2.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 15517 in / 14637 out tokens · 150553 ms · 2026-08-03T04:43:38.341162+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Organizations increasingly define operational metrics in structured, machine-readable formats to monitor systems, processes, and compliance. These metric definitions implicitly encode domain knowledge, such as referencing concepts, properties, and relationships, that often extends what is captured in formal ontologies. Yet the connection between operational metric catalogues and ontological knowledge remains manual, ad-hoc, and labor-intensive. We present COntExt, a framework for context-aware ontology extension that takes structured metric definitions as input and suggests how referenced concepts and properties should be integrated into an existing ontology, utilizing the context of these metrics. The framework defines the extension problem as three sub-tasks: parent class prediction, relation type prediction, and data property assignment. Across four cybersecurity ontologies, we evaluate different algorithms for each task. Our results show that metric-derived context improves the suggestions over ontology-context baselines for relation type prediction and data property assignment. Our work demonstrates that operational metric catalogues are a practical and underexploited source for ontology extension. This work enables organizations to maintain their ontologies at a significantly lower cost than manual engineering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29553 by Angelika Schneider, Hussain Hussain, Stefan Sch\"oberl, Verena Geist.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An illustration of COntExt framework. This figure shows the input to COntExt, represented by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

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

114 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Claude opus 4.7

    Anthropic (2026). Claude opus 4.7. Large language model, https://www.anthropic.com/claude. Accessed via Claude Code; model ID claude-opus-4-7

    2026

  2. [2]

    and Dutta, B

    Bain, D. and Dutta, B. (2024). Systematic analysis of covid-19 ontologies. In Research Conference on Metadata and Semantics Research , pages 74--91. Springer

    2024

  3. [3]

    Bennett, M. (2013). The financial industry business ontology: Best practice for big data. Journal of Banking Regulation , 14(3--4):255--268

    2013

  4. [4]

    Bordes, A., Usunier, N., Garcia-Duran, A., Weston, J., and Yakhnenko, O. (2013). Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. Advances in neural information processing systems , 26

    2013

  5. [5]

    and Pokuta, W

    Bryniarska, A. and Pokuta, W. (2022). Ontology-based knowledge representation in the IoT cybersecurity system. Semantic Web

    2022

  6. [6]

    and Hays, R

    Cella, D. and Hays, R. D. (2022). A patient reported outcome ontology: Conceptual issues and challenges addressed by the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (promis ). Patient Related Outcome Measures , pages 189--197

    2022

  7. [7]

    Chen, J., Mashkova, O., Zhapa-Camacho, F., Hoehndorf, R., He, Y., and Horrocks, I. (2025). Ontology embedding: a survey of methods, applications and resources. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 37:4193--4212

    2025

  8. [8]

    Cotti, L., Drago, I., Rula, A., Bianchini, D., and Cerutti, F. (2026). Ontologx: Ontology-guided knowledge graph extraction from cybersecurity logs with large language models. Advanced Intelligent Systems , page e202501381

    2026

  9. [9]

    Dong, H., Chen, J., He, Y., Gao, Y., and Horrocks, I. (2024). A Language Model based Framework for New Concept Placement in Ontologies . arXiv:2402.17897 [cs]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [11]

    Garc \' a-Castro, R., Lefran c ois, M., Poveda-Villal \'o n, M., and Daniele, L. (2023). The ETSI SAREF ontology for smart applications: a long path of development and evolution. Energy Smart Appliances: Applications, Methodologies, and Challenges , pages 183--215

    2023

  11. [12]

    Grisiute, A., Wiedemann, N., Herthogs, P., and Raubal, M. (2024). An ontology-based approach for harmonizing metrics in bike network evaluations. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems , 113:102178

    2024

  12. [13]

    Hao, J., Lei, C., Efthymiou, V., Quamar, A., Özcan, F., Sun, Y., and Wang, W. (2021). MEDTO : Medical Data to Ontology Matching Using Hybrid Graph Neural Networks . In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , pages 2946--2954, Virtual Event Singapore. ACM

    2021

  13. [14]

    Jiang, M., Song, X., Zhang, J., and Han, J. (2022). Taxoenrich: Self-supervised taxonomy completion via structure-semantic representations. In Proceedings of the ACM web conference 2022 , pages 925--934

    2022

  14. [15]

    M., Geller, J., Keloth, V

    Kollapally, N. M., Geller, J., Keloth, V. K., He, Z., and Xu, J. (2025). Ontology enrichment using a large language model: Applying lexical, semantic, and knowledge network-based similarity for concept placement. Journal of Biomedical Informatics , 168:104865

    2025

  15. [16]

    Liu, H., Perl, Y., and Geller, J. (2020). Concept placement using BERT trained by transforming and summarizing biomedical ontology structure. Journal of Biomedical Informatics , 112:103607

    2020

  16. [17]

    Liu, X., Hussain, H., Razouk, H., and Kern, R. (2022). Effective use of BERT in graph embeddings for sparse knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing , pages 799--802

    2022

  17. [18]

    Longueira-Romero, \'A ., Iglesias, R., Gonzalez, D., and Garitano, I. (2020). How to quantify the security level of embedded systems? a taxonomy of security metrics. In 2020 IEEE 18th International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN) , volume 1, pages 153--158. IEEE

    2020

  18. [19]

    D., Chen, M., Wu, T.-L., and Peng, N

    Ma, M. D., Chen, M., Wu, T.-L., and Peng, N. (2021). Hyperexpan: Taxonomy expansion with hyperbolic representation learning. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021 , pages 4182--4194

    2021

  19. [20]

    Mežnar, S., Bevec, M., Lavrač, N., and Škrlj, B. (2022). Ontology Completion with Graph - Based Machine Learning : A Comprehensive Evaluation . Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction , 4(4):1107--1123

    2022

  20. [21]

    Morrison, P., Moye, D., Pandita, R., and Williams, L. (2018). Mapping the field of software life cycle security metrics. Information and Software Technology , 102:146--159

    2018

  21. [22]

    Nguyen, L., Barcelos, E., French, R., and Wu, Y. (2025). KROMA : Ontology matching with knowledge retrieval and large language models. In International Semantic Web Conference , pages 629--649. Springer

    2025

  22. [23]

    Pendleton, M., Garcia-Lebron, R., Cho, J.-H., and Xu, S. (2016). A survey on systems security metrics. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , 49(4):1--35

    2016

  23. [24]

    and Gurevych, I

    Reimers, N. and Gurevych, I. (2019). S entence- BERT : Sentence embeddings using S iamese BERT -networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) , pages 3982--3992. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2019

  24. [25]

    G., Ekaputra, F

    Reiz, A., Dibowski, H., Gonzales, I. G., Ekaputra, F. J., and Sandkuhl, K. (2025). SHACLEval --a quality framework for the shapes constraint language. In First International Workshop on Users and Knowledge Graphs@ SEMANTiCS 2025

    2025

  25. [26]

    and Sandkuhl, K

    Reiz, A. and Sandkuhl, K. (2024). NEOntometrics - a public endpoint for calculating ontology metrics. Transactions on Graph Data and Knowledge , 2(2):2:1--2:22

    2024

  26. [27]

    A., Osborne, F., Thanapalasingam, T., and Motta, E

    Salatino, A. A., Osborne, F., Thanapalasingam, T., and Motta, E. (2019). The CSO classifier: Ontology-driven detection of research topics in scholarly articles. In Digital Libraries for Open Knowledge , volume 11720 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 296--311. Springer

    2019

  27. [28]

    Sammi, D., Bhushan, L., Mutharaju, R., and Shimizu, C. (2025). OntoInsight - a metric-guided tool for ontology quality evaluation with llm-powered recommendations. In International Conference on Conceptual Modeling , pages 393--411. Springer

    2025

  28. [29]

    M., Iyer, V., and Reddy, Y

    Sanagavarapu, L. M., Iyer, V., and Reddy, Y. R. (2022). OntoEnricher : a deep learning approach for ontology enrichment from unstructured text. In Cybersecurity and High-Performance Computing Environments , pages 261--284. Chapman and Hall/CRC

    2022

  29. [30]

    Savola, R. (2007). Towards a security metrics taxonomy for the information and communication technology industry. In International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA 2007) , pages 60--60. IEEE

    2007

  30. [31]

    Sch\" o berl, S., Banse, C., Geist, V., Kunz, I., and Pinzger, M. (2024). CertGraph : Towards a comprehensive knowledge graph for cloud security certifications. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 27th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems , MODELS Companion '24, page 76–77, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery

    2024

  31. [32]

    Shen, J., Shen, Z., Xiong, C., Wang, C., Wang, K., and Han, J. (2020). TaxoExpan : Self -supervised Taxonomy Expansion with Position - Enhanced Graph Neural Network . In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020 , pages 486--497. arXiv:2001.09522 [cs]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [33]

    and Fallenbeck, N

    Stephanow, P. and Fallenbeck, N. (2015). Towards continuous certification of infrastructure-as-a-service using low-level metrics. In 2015 IEEE 12th Intl Conf on Ubiquitous Intelligence and Computing and 2015 IEEE 12th Intl Conf on Autonomic and Trusted Computing and 2015 IEEE 15th Intl Conf on Scalable Computing and Communications and Its Associated Works...

    2015

  33. [34]

    and Shafagatova, A

    Van Looy, A. and Shafagatova, A. (2016). Business process performance measurement: a structured literature review of indicators, measures and metrics. SpringerPlus , 5(1):1797

    2016

  34. [35]

    and Katt, B

    Wen, S.-F. and Katt, B. (2024). Ontology-based metrics computation for system security assurance evaluation. Journal of Applied Security Research , 19(2):230--275

    2024

  35. [36]

    Yu, M., Rabhi, F., Xia, B., Yang, Z., Tan, F., and Lu, Q. (2026). OntoMetric : An ontology-driven LLM -assisted framework for automated ESG metric knowledge graph generation

    2026

  36. [37]

    Zablith, F., Antoniou, G., d'Aquin, M., Flouris, G., Kondylakis, H., Motta, E., Plexousakis, D., and Sabou, M. (2015). Ontology evolution: a process-centric survey. The knowledge engineering review , 30(1):45--75

    2015

  37. [38]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , author =

    Knowledge. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , author =. 2014 , file =. doi:10.1609/aaai.v28i1.8870 , abstract =

    doi:10.1609/aaai.v28i1.8870 2014

  38. [39]

    Ontology engineering with

    Mateiu, Patricia and Groza, Adrian , month = sep, year =. Ontology engineering with. 2023 25th. doi:10.1109/SYNASC61333.2023.00038 , abstract =

    arXiv 2023

  39. [40]

    Gosselin, Francis and Zouaq, Amal , editor =. The. 2023 , note =. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47240-4_30 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47240-4_30 2023

  40. [41]

    Text2KGBench: A Benchmark for Ontology-Driven Knowledge Graph Generation from Text

    Mihindukulasooriya, Nandana and Tiwari, Sanju and Enguix, Carlos F. and Lata, Kusum , month = aug, year =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2308.02357 , abstract =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.02357

  41. [42]

    De Berardinis, Jacopo and Carriero, Valentina Anita and Jain, Nitisha and Lazzari, Nicolas and Meroño-Peñuela, Albert and Poltronieri, Andrea and Presutti, Valentina , editor =. The. The. 2023 , note =. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47243-5_17 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47243-5_17 2023

  42. [43]

    Färber, Michael and Lamprecht, David and Susanti, Yuni , editor =. The. 2025 , note =. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-77847-6_7 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-77847-6_7 2025

  43. [44]

    Scrocca, Mario and Grassi, Marco and Carenini, Alessio and Anicic, Darko and Calbimonte, Jean-Paul and Celino, Irene , editor =. A. The. 2026 , note =. doi:10.1007/978-3-032-09530-5_22 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-032-09530-5_22 2026

  44. [45]

    Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research , author =

    Deep. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research , author =. 2025 , pages =. doi:10.48084/etasr.9431 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.48084/etasr.9431 2025

  45. [46]

    Nguyen, Lam and Barcelos, Erika and French, Roger and Wu, Yinghui , editor =. The. 2026 , note =. doi:10.1007/978-3-032-09527-5_34 , language =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-032-09527-5_34 2026

  46. [47]

    IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society , author =

    Modeling. IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society , author =. 2025 , pages =. doi:10.1109/OJCOMS.2025.3532224 , abstract =

    arXiv 2025

  47. [48]

    Ontology-

    Guo, Wenbin and Wang, Xin and Chen, Jiaoyan and Li, Zhao and Chen, Zirui , editor =. Ontology-. The. 2026 , note =. doi:10.1007/978-3-032-09527-5_4 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-032-09527-5_4 2026

  48. [49]

    2025 , pages =

    Artificial Intelligence , author =. 2025 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2025.104359 , language =

    arXiv 2025

  49. [50]

    2026 , file =

    The. 2026 , file =. doi:10.1007/978-3-032-09527-5 , language =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-032-09527-5 2026

  50. [51]

    Language

    Yang, Hui and Chen, Jiaoyan and He, Yuan and Gao, Yongsheng and Horrocks, Ian , editor =. Language. The. 2026 , note =. doi:10.1007/978-3-032-09527-5_24 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-032-09527-5_24 2026

  51. [52]

    and Scala, Daan L

    Bakker, Roos M. and Scala, Daan L. Di and Boer, Maaike H. T. de and Raaijmakers, Stephan A. , month = dec, year =. Ontology. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2512.05594 , abstract =

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.05594

  52. [53]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05910 , year=

    An automatic ontology generation framework with an organizational perspective , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05910 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [54]

    Proceedings of the 27th

    Hao, Junheng and Lei, Chuan and Efthymiou, Vasilis and Quamar, Abdul and Özcan, Fatma and Sun, Yizhou and Wang, Wei , month = aug, year =. Proceedings of the 27th. doi:10.1145/3447548.3467138 , abstract =

    arXiv

  54. [55]

    VeeAlign: Multifaceted Context Representation using Dual Attention for Ontology Alignment

    Iyer, Vivek and Agarwal, Arvind and Kumar, Harshit , month = dec, year =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2102.04081 , abstract =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.04081

  55. [56]

    A review for ontology construction from unstructured texts by using deep learning , isbn =

    Yuan, Shandong and He, Jun and Wang, Min and Zhou, Han and Ren, Yun , editor =. A review for ontology construction from unstructured texts by using deep learning , isbn =. International. 2022 , pages =. doi:10.1117/12.2628713 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2628713 2022

  56. [57]

    Cybersecurity and

    Li, Kuan-Ching and Sukhija, Nitin and Bautista, Elizabeth and Gaudiot, Jean-Luc , month = mar, year =. Cybersecurity and. doi:10.1201/9781003155799 , language =

    work page doi:10.1201/9781003155799

  57. [58]

    Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction , author =

    Ontology. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction , author =. 2022 , pages =. doi:10.3390/make4040056 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.3390/make4040056 2022

  58. [59]

    Information Sciences , author =

    Knowledge extraction from textual data and performance evaluation in an unsupervised context , volume =. Information Sciences , author =. 2023 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2023.01.150 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ins.2023.01.150 2023

  59. [60]

    Babaei Giglou, Hamed and D’Souza, Jennifer and Auer, Sören , editor =. The. 2023 , note =. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47240-4_22 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47240-4_22 2023

  60. [61]

    Ontology

    Dong, Hang and Chen, Jiaoyan and He, Yuan and Horrocks, Ian , month = oct, year =. Ontology. Proceedings of the 32nd. doi:10.1145/3583780.3615126 , abstract =

    arXiv

  61. [62]

    Dong, Hang and Chen, Jiaoyan and He, Yuan and Gao, Yongsheng and Horrocks, Ian , month = mar, year =. A. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2402.17897 , abstract =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.17897

  62. [63]

    Proceedings of

    Shen, Jiaming and Shen, Zhihong and Xiong, Chenyan and Wang, Chi and Wang, Kuansan and Han, Jiawei , month = apr, year =. Proceedings of. doi:10.1145/3366423.3380132 , abstract =

    arXiv

  63. [64]

    Expert Systems with Applications , author =

    Exploring sequence-to-sequence taxonomy expansion via language model probing , volume =. Expert Systems with Applications , author =. 2024 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122321 , abstract =

    arXiv 2024

  64. [65]

    Knowledge and Information Systems , author =

    A comprehensive survey of manual and dynamic approaches for cybersecurity taxonomy generation , volume =. Knowledge and Information Systems , author =. 2025 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s10115-025-02382-w , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s10115-025-02382-w 2025

  65. [66]

    Journal of Biomedical Informatics , author =

    Concept placement using. Journal of Biomedical Informatics , author =. 2020 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103607 , abstract =

    arXiv 2020

  66. [67]

    International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering , pages=

    Enabling representation learning in ontology-driven conceptual modeling using graph neural networks , author=. International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering , pages=. 2023 , organization=

    2023

  67. [68]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17216 , year=

    Ontology completion with natural language inference and concept embeddings: An analysis , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17216 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  68. [69]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021 , pages=

    Hyperexpan: Taxonomy expansion with hyperbolic representation learning , author=. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021 , pages=

    2021

  69. [70]

    Proceedings of the ACM web conference 2022 , pages=

    Taxoenrich: Self-supervised taxonomy completion via structure-semantic representations , author=. Proceedings of the ACM web conference 2022 , pages=

    2022

  70. [71]

    Journal of Applied Security Research , volume=

    Ontology-based metrics computation for system security assurance evaluation , author=. Journal of Applied Security Research , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  71. [72]

    2017 European Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference (EISIC) , pages=

    Cyber threat intelligence model: an evaluation of taxonomies, sharing standards, and ontologies within cyber threat intelligence , author=. 2017 European Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference (EISIC) , pages=. 2017 , organization=

    2017

  72. [73]

    IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , year=

    Ontology embedding: a survey of methods, applications and resources , author=. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , year=

  73. [74]

    Conference on Data Mining and Data Warehousing (SiKDD 2008) , year=

    Semi-automatic ontology extension using text mining , author=. Conference on Data Mining and Data Warehousing (SiKDD 2008) , year=

    2008

  74. [75]

    Proceedings of the 39th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing , pages=

    You cannot improve what you do not measure: A triangulation study of software security metrics , author=. Proceedings of the 39th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing , pages=

  75. [76]

    2024 , publisher=

    Reiz, Achim and Sandkuhl, Kurt , journal=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  76. [77]

    , author=

    An Ontology for Ontology Metrics: Creating a Shared Understanding of Measurable Attributes for Humans and Machines. , author=. KDIR , pages=

  77. [78]

    2025 , organization=

    Sammi, Daksh and Bhushan, Lakshay and Mutharaju, Raghava and Shimizu, Cogan , booktitle=. 2025 , organization=

    2025

  78. [79]

    Computers, Environment and Urban Systems , volume=

    An ontology-based approach for harmonizing metrics in bike network evaluations , author=. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  79. [80]

    SpringerPlus , volume=

    Business process performance measurement: a structured literature review of indicators, measures and metrics , author=. SpringerPlus , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  80. [81]

    Reiz, Achim and Dibowski, Henrik and Gonzales, Irlan Grangel and Ekaputra, Fajar J and Sandkuhl, Kurt , booktitle=

Showing first 80 references.