Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Improving Interoperability among Defence and National Security Ontologies: Analysis and Evaluation Tasks

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper assembles a curated collection of 60+ defence and security ontologies and a new eight-task evaluation track for aligning them.

desk verdict A useful, reproducible new OAEI track with an honestly-labeled provisional silver standard; the resource is worth a serious referee, but don't treat the reference alignment as settled yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05867 v1 pith:V3VS7RQ2 submitted 2026-08-06 cs.AI

Jonathon Dilworth , Pedro Giesteira Cotovio , David Herron , Paul Cripps , Nigel Dewdney , Catia Pesquita , Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords OntologyMatchingAlignmentDefenceandNationalSecurityKnowledgeGraphsEvaluationOAEISilverStandardConsensus
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 aims to make defence and national security ontologies interoperable by giving researchers the corpus and the measuring stick to align them. It assembles DISO, a documented collection of 63 publicly available OWL ontologies covering cybersecurity, situation awareness, smart environments, and other subdomains, and it runs a bulk alignment exercise over 1,653 ontology pairs to find where these ontologies actually intersect. From that analysis it selects eight non-trivial matching tasks and packages them as a new track in the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative, complete with consensus alignments produced by several state-of-the-art systems and a manually verified silver-standard reference alignment. A sympathetic reader would care because, if the resource is sound, alignment systems can finally be benchmarked on a realistic, open, defence-specific test bed instead of only on generic or biomedical ontologies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing artifact is the DISO network of ontologies, a curated collection of 63 publicly available OWL ontologies organised into 11 clusters. The argument runs through a three-stage pipeline: a bulk LogMap alignment over 1,653 ontology pairs identifies candidate matching tasks; family-based voting aggregates the outputs of eight system families into consensus alignments, with each family counted once so that systems entering multiple variants cannot dominate; and manual curation of the vote-2 consensus plus mappings unique to a single family produces the silver-standard reference alignment. The family-based voting is what makes the consensus reproducible and less biased, and the manual step is what turns agreement into an asserted ground truth.

What would settle it

Take the STIX-D3FEND task, have a panel of defence and cybersecurity experts who did not participate in the paper independently classify each silver-standard mapping as correct or incorrect, and compare: if a substantial number of silver mappings is rejected, or if the experts identify many obviously correct mappings the systems all missed, the track's reference alignments cannot support reliable evaluation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the defence and national security domain already has a large, loosely connected ecosystem of public ontologies, and that this ecosystem can be turned into a reproducible evaluation setting. LogMap found at least one mapping in 647 of 1,653 ontology pairs, showing substantial overlap despite very different modelling styles. The eight selected tasks split into three subdomains—cybersecurity (UCO-STIX, STIX-D3FEND), situation awareness (JC3IEDM against mIO!, Brick, and Facility), and smart environments (ThinkHome-Brick, Brick-SmartEnv, CityOWL-Brick)—and system outputs on them differ sharply: for JC3IEDM-mIO!, LogMap produced 234 mappings while AML produced 34. The authors therefore built a family-based consensus alignment and manually merged it with correct system-unique mappings to form a silver standard for each task. They also show that merging these ontologies with either system or silver-standard mappings makes many classes unsatisfiable, meaning no individual can belong to them under the combined axioms, so the track includes a genuine logical-reasoning challenge, and the silver standard has been treated to fix such errors for the 2026 campaign.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark rests on the authors' own manual judgments that the silver-standard mappings are correct; if those judgments are wrong or biased, every score computed against the track inherits the error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • OAEI participants can benchmark their alignment systems against eight defence and security tasks spanning three subdomains, with a silver standard to score against.
  • The DISO repository and the diso-mappings pipeline allow anyone to reproduce the consensus alignments and extend the collection with new ontologies or new matchers.
  • The coherence results show that even strong alignment systems create unsatisfiable classes when their mappings are merged with the source ontologies, so future systems in this domain should treat logical consistency as part of the task.
  • Because the silver standard is explicitly partial, its recall is bounded by what the participating systems can discover, so it should be used as a lower-bound reference rather than a complete gold standard.
  • The planned leaderboard and candidate-ranking task will let machine-learning-based matchers enter without requiring them to output full alignments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step the authors do not spell out is to score systems not just on precision and recall against the silver standard but also on how few unsatisfiable classes their mappings introduce; the paper's own coherence data make such a combined metric feasible.
  • If the DISO collection grows the way biomedical repositories have, the track could become the empirical basis for deciding which upper-level or mid-level ontologies should anchor a shared defence and security ontology stack.
  • The sharp disagreement among systems on tasks like JC3IEDM-mIO! suggests that label-based matching is insufficient for many defence mappings; testing whether structure-aware or instance-aware matchers close that gap would be a direct use of the released pipeline.
  • Re-running the same consensus-plus-validation protocol on ontologies whose labels are not in English would reveal whether the observed system disagreements are a property of the defence domain or an artefact of the systems' English-centric features.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper introduces DISO, a curated collection of 60+ publicly available ontologies relevant to the defence and national security domain, together with a new OAEI evaluation track consisting of eight matching tasks. The track is built by running several existing ontology alignment systems, aggregating their outputs into family-based consensus alignments, and manually curating a silver-standard reference alignment. The paper reports ontology statistics, consensus and per-system mapping counts, manual validation results, reasoning-based ontology compatibility analysis, and describes three released repositories (diso, diso-mappings, diso-oaei) that support reproducibility and community participation.

Significance. If the resource is valid, this is a valuable contribution: a reproducible, documented ontology collection and a benchmark for ontology matching in a domain where evaluation datasets are scarce. The paper has clear strengths: the corpus and pipeline are publicly released with permanent repositories, the collection criteria are explicit, the task-selection process is described, and the authors honestly acknowledge the silver-standard's limitations. The analysis of logical errors across systems and the silver standard also provides a useful preliminary view of the difficulty of the tasks. However, the central benchmark claim depends on the reliability of the manually constructed silver-standard, which has not yet been externally validated; this tempers the immediate trustworthiness of the track but does not undermine the corpus and pipeline contributions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 6] The silver-standard construction is underspecified. The text says the silver standard is created by merging the correct Con-2 mappings and the correct unique mappings, but the final counts do not match the sum of these two sets. For example, in UCO-STIX, 171 Con-2 mappings at 91% correctness (approximately 156) plus approximately 88 correct unique mappings (43*0.84 + 516*0.10) sum to roughly 244, yet the reported silver total is 194. The paper's earlier phrase 'a subset of the unique mappings' is never quantified or given a selection rule. Since the silver standard is the reference for all future participant evaluations, this missing rule makes the reference partly arbitrary and materially affects precision/recall scores. The authors should specify exactly how the subset was chosen, or provide the complete set of correct unique mappings and justify any exclusion.
  2. [Section 3.2, Manual assessment] The manual validation is described as 'performed primarily by the authors,' and the paper reports no inter-annotator agreement and no external expert validation. This is load-bearing because the silver standard is the ground truth of the track, and several of the evaluated systems are developed by the same research groups as the authors (e.g., LogMap, AML/Matcha). Without a blinding protocol or independent adjudication, the reference may systematically incorporate the biases of those matchers. The paper should either provide inter-annotator agreement statistics on a sample, include validation by independent domain experts, or clearly label the current reference as provisional and specify how bias will be controlled in the OAEI 2026 update.
  3. [Section 3.2, Mapping comparison] The authors acknowledge that the silver standard is derived from the evaluated systems, so its recall is bounded by those systems and it will favor systems resembling them. They therefore choose not to report precision/recall values and instead show Jaccard distances. This is a reasonable caution, but the track's utility for future OAEI participants depends on a clearer quantification of this limitation. The paper should provide an explicit estimate of the reference's coverage (for instance, the union-of-systems upper bound, or the number of human-added mappings beyond any system output) and discuss how participants' precision/recall should be interpreted given this bounded recall.
  4. [Section 3.2, Table 7 and Section 4] Table 7 reports that the silver standard leads to unsatisfiable classes in several tasks, yet the text states that 'for the DISO-OAEI 2026 track, the silver standard has been treated to fix logical errors and annotate incoherent mappings.' The paper does not report the corrected statistics or clarify which version is actually shipped in the repositories. This creates an inconsistency between the analyzed silver standard and the benchmark that participants will use. The authors should state clearly which version is released, describe the fixing procedure, and report the logical-error counts for the final released version.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 6 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'ALOD2VEc' should be 'ALOD2Vec'.
  2. [Table 5] Table 5 lists only six systems (AML, BertMap, BertMapLt, LogMap, LogMapLt, Matcha), while the text states that LogMapLLM, ALOD2Vec, ATMatcher, Fine-TOM, and KGMatcher were also executed but were unable to produce mappings on all tasks. To make the comparison complete, the table should include a row or column indicating which systems failed on which tasks, or an explicit note about their omission.
  3. [Figure 2] The axes are labelled MDS-1 and MDS-2, but the text never defines MDS; please add a sentence explaining that these are the first two multidimensional scaling dimensions of the Jaccard distance matrix.
  4. [Table 1 and Section 3.1] Table 1 lists the cluster 'mid-level' with size 12 but does not show the subcluster 'cco-modules', which is used in Table 3 and in the description of the Facility ontology. Please add the missing subcluster to Table 1 or note explicitly that 'cco-modules' is a subcluster within 'mid-level'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Silver-standard reference is constructed from the very matcher outputs it is used to score, making track evaluation circular by construction; the corpus and pipeline remain independent.

  1. self definitional [Abstract and Section 3.2 (Manual assessment), Table 6]
    "The silver-standard is obtained from the manual validation of the consensus alignment together with a subset of the unique mappings (i.e., mappings suggested by only one system). ... We emphasise that the silver-standard is derived from the outputs of the participating systems, its recall is inherently bounded by what these systems can collectively discover, and it will favour systems that resemble those used in its construction."

    The reference alignment that defines the track's evaluation is, by construction, a function of the outputs of the same matcher families the track is designed to compare. A participant whose output resembles the consensus or the manually accepted unique mappings is scored higher mechanically, while systems that find correct but previously undiscovered mappings are penalized through the bounded recall. Manual validation does not break this circularity: it only labels a subset of the systems' own outputs rather than providing an independent gold standard, and the paper states the validation was 'performed primarily by the authors' with external expert validation and inter-annotator agreement analysis only 'planned' for OAEI 2026.

  2. other [Section 3, before Table 3 (task selection)]
    "LogMap was selected to drive the task selection as it generates different types of outputs that enabled a fine-grained analysis. ... We analysed the ontology pairs sharing a larger amount of ontology mappings (as suggested by the LogMap system) and ranked them in terms of complexity of the alignment task; that is, ontology pairs where their entities have fewer identical labels were preferred."

    The eight OAEI tasks were selected by ranking ontology pairs according to the alignments produced by one specific matcher, LogMap, and the same matcher (along with its variants LogMapLt and LogMapLLM) is later included among the evaluated systems and contributes to the consensus and silver-standard alignments. This is less severe than the reference-construction issue because the ontology pairs are real and documented, but it makes the benchmark's task selection and the reported system comparisons partially endogenous to one matcher family.

full rationale

The paper's main deliverables are a curated corpus, a documentation effort, and a new OAEI track. The corpus compilation, FAIR metadata, and the reproducible diso-mappings pipeline are self-contained and not circular. The circularity lies in the evaluation reference: the silver-standard alignment is generated by merging family-voted consensus mappings and a subset of unique mappings from the participating systems, after manual validation by the authors. Because the reference is a function of the systems' own outputs, any subsequent precision/recall ranking of OAEI participants against it will favor systems resembling the matcher families used in its construction and will penalize correct novel mappings through bounded recall. The authors explicitly acknowledge this limitation and refrain from reporting precision/recall here, instead presenting set-proximity visualizations; this transparency prevents a higher score, but the benchmark as designed remains circular for evaluation purposes until an independently validated gold standard is introduced. Self-citations to LogMap, AML/Matcha, and OAEI results are not themselves load-bearing; the circularity is in the reference construction, not in the citation chain.

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

There are no fitted numerical parameters. The main assumptions are domain-level: the collected ontologies are representative, the manual clustering is meaningful, and the selection of eight tasks via LogMap is appropriate. No new theoretical entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption OWL 2 semantics apply to the collected ontologies as published
    The analysis treats all collected ontologies as OWL 2 artifacts and runs reasoners over them; Section 2 and Table 4.
  • ad hoc to paper The DISO clusters are meaningful partitions of the defence/security ontology landscape
    Clustering into 11 subdomains is manually assigned; overlapping memberships allowed; Section 2, Table 1.
  • domain assumption The eight selected ontology pairs are representative of challenging defence/security matching tasks
    Selection based on LogMap-derived mapping sizes and label complexity; Section 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improving Interoperability among Defence and National Security Ontologies: Analysis and Evaluation Tasks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V3VS7RQ2

@misc{pith2026260805867,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improving Interoperability among Defence and National Security Ontologies: Analysis and Evaluation Tasks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V3VS7RQ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05867}
}
read the original abstract

The use of ontologies and knowledge graphs is becoming increasingly widespread in the defence and national security domain. Numerous ontologies have been developed through initiatives led by academia, industry, and government. Achieving interoperability across diverse defence and national security ontologies remains a major challenge due to the domain's breadth and specialisation. In this work, we analyse and document over 60 publicly available ontologies and introduce a new track for the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI). This track comprises eight matching tasks, consensus alignments and manually-curated (silver-standard) mappings. The consensus alignments are derived by aggregating the outputs of several state-of-the-art ontology alignment systems. The silver-standard is obtained from the manual validation of the consensus alignment together with a subset of the unique mappings (i.e., mappings suggested by only one system).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05867 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A view of the conceptual overlaps that exist between some of the clusters (or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visual representation of the Jaccard distances among mapping sets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The DISO ecosystem. The diso ontology collection aims to be extended through a collective effort by contributors and released through Zenodo. The diso-mapping pipeline runs a configurable, extendable set of matchers and aggregates their outputs into a family-based consensus alignment. The alignment is reviewed by maintainers and domain experts, and serves as a partial silver-standard reference alignment, form￾ing th… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Semantic Web9(6), 903–918 (2018).https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-180303

    Alirezaie, M., Hammar, K., Blomqvist, E.: SmartEnv as a network of ontology patterns. Semantic Web9(6), 903–918 (2018).https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-180303

    work page doi:10.3233/sw-180303 2018

  2. [2]

    Sensors17(7) (2017).https://doi.org/10.3390/ S17071586

    Alirezaie, M., Renoux, J., Köckemann, U., Kristoffersson, A., Karlsson, L., Blomqvist, E., Tsiftes, N., V oigt, T., Loutfi, A.: An Ontology-based Context-aware System for Smart Homes: E-care@home. Sensors17(7) (2017).https://doi.org/10.3390/ S17071586

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Augusto, J.C., McCullagh, P.J.: Ambient Intelligence: Concepts and applications. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst.4(1), 1–27 (2007).https://doi.org/10.2298/CSIS0701001A

    work page doi:10.2298/csis0701001a 2007

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings of the Joint Ontology Workshops (JOWO)

    Bailey, I., Beverley, J., Blackmore, H., Cola, A., Cripps, P., Colle, G.D., Donato, F., Hicks, A., Limbaugh, D., Milivinti, E., Partridge, C., Rafferty, R., Smith, B.: Comparing Informa- tion Exchange Standard and Basic Formal Ontology Design Patterns. In: Proceedings of the Joint Ontology Workshops (JOWO). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org (2025), h...

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Barnum, S.: Standardizing Cyber Threat Intelligence Information with the Structured Threat Information eXpression (STIX). Tech. rep., MITRE Corporation (2014),https: //stixproject.github.io/getting-started/whitepaper/

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    In: 1st Annual International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems (MobiQuitous)

    Chen, H., Perich, F., Finin, T.W., Joshi, A.: SOUPA: Standard Ontology for Ubiquitous and Pervasive Applications. In: 1st Annual International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems (MobiQuitous). pp. 258–267. IEEE Computer Society (2004).https://doi. org/10.1109/MOBIQ.2004.1331732

    arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    Chen, J., Lu, Y ., Zhang, Y ., Huang, F., Qin, J.: A management knowledge graph approach for critical infrastructure protection: Ontology design, information extraction and relation prediction. Int. J. Crit. Infrastructure Prot.43, 100634 (2023).https://doi.org/10. 1016/J.IJCIP.2023.100634

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    In: Proceedings of the Ninth Con- ference on Semantic Technology for Intelligence, Defense, and Security

    Costa, D., Collins, M., Perl, S.J., Albrethsen, M., Silowash, G., Spooner, D.: An ontology for insider threat indicators: Development and application. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Con- ference on Semantic Technology for Intelligence, Defense, and Security. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1304, pp. 48–53. CEUR-WS.org (2014),https://ceur-ws.org/ Vol-1304/ST...

    work page 2014

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Sattler, U.: OWL 2: The next step for OWL. J. Web Semant.6(4), 309–322 (2008),https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.websem.2008.05.001

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    Dragisic, Z., Ivanova, V ., Li, H., Lambrix, P.: Experiences from the anatomy track in the ontology alignment evaluation initiative. J. Biomed. Semant.8(1), 56:1–56:28 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-017-0166-5

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    In: Advances in Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems - 16th Annual KES Conference

    Dragos, V .: Ontology modeling for intelligence: the ONTO-CIF model. In: Advances in Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems - 16th Annual KES Conference. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 243, pp. 1543–1552. IOS Press (201...

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    Human Fac- tors37(1), 32–64 (1995).https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543

    Endsley, M.R.: Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Human Fac- tors37(1), 32–64 (1995).https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543

    1995 doi

  5. [13]

    Springer (2013) 18 J

    Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology Matching, Second Edition. Springer (2013) 18 J. Dilworth et al

    2013

  6. [14]

    In: Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J., Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Hassanzadeh, O., Trojahn, C

    Fallatah, O., Zhang, Z., Hopfgartner, F.: Kgmatcher results for OAEI 2021. In: Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J., Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Hassanzadeh, O., Trojahn, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Ontology Matching co-located with the 20th International Semantic We...

    2021

  7. [15]

    Semantic Web16(2), SW–233304 (2025)

    Faria, D., Santos, E., Balasubramani, B.S., Silva, M.C., Couto, F.M., Pesquita, C.: Agree- mentMakerLight. Semantic Web16(2), SW–233304 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Faria, D., Silva, M.C., Cotovio, P., Ferraz, L., Balbi, L., Pesquita, C.: Results for Matcha and Matcha-DL in OAEI 2023. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Workshop on On- tology Matching co-located with the 22nd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2023), Athens...

    2023

  9. [17]

    d’Avila Garcez, A., Lamb, L.C.: Neurosymbolic AI: the 3rd wave. Artif. Intell. Rev.56(11), 12387–12406 (2023).https://doi.org/10.1007/S10462-023-10448-W

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Garijo, D., Poveda-Villalón, M.: Best Practices for Implementing FAIR V ocabularies and Ontologies on the Web (2020),https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.13084

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Glimm, B., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Stoilos, G., Wang, Z.: HermiT: An OWL 2 Rea- soner. J. Autom. Reason.53(3), 245–269 (2014).https://doi.org/10.1007/ S10817-014-9305-1

    2014

  12. [20]

    Harrow, I., Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Splendiani, A., Romacker, M., Woollard, P., Markel, S., Alam- Faruque, Y ., Koch, M., Malone, J., Waaler, A.: Matching disease and phenotype ontologies in the ontology alignment evaluation initiative. J. Biomed. Semant.8(1), 55:1–55:13 (2017). htt...

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    In: Thirty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    He, Y ., Chen, J., Antonyrajah, D., Horrocks, I.: BERTMap: A BERT-Based Ontology Align- ment System. In: Thirty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. pp. 5684–5691. AAAI Press (2022),https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v36i5.20510

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    In: 21st International Semantic Web Conference

    He, Y ., Chen, J., Dong, H., Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Hadian, A., Horrocks, I.: Machine Learning- Friendly Biomedical Datasets for Equivalence and Subsumption Ontology Matching. In: 21st International Semantic Web Conference. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 13489, pp. 575–591...

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Neurosymbolic Artificial Intel- ligence1(April 2025).https://doi.org/10.1177/29498732251320043

    Herron, D., Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Weyde, T.: On the Potential of Logic and Reasoning in Neu- rosymbolic Systems using OWL-based Knowledge Graphs. Neurosymbolic Artificial Intel- ligence1(April 2025).https://doi.org/10.1177/29498732251320043

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    In: Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J., Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Hassanzadeh, O., Trojahn, C

    Hertling, S., Paulheim, H.: ATBox results for OAEI 2022. In: Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J., Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Hassanzadeh, O., Trojahn, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th In- ternational Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM). pp. 153–157. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org (2022),h...

    2022

  17. [25]

    ACM Comput

    Hogan, A., Blomqvist, E., Cochez, M., d’Amato, C., de Melo, G., Gutierrez, C., Kirrane, S., Gayo, J.E.L., Navigli, R., Neumaier, S., Ngomo, A.N., Polleres, A., Rashid, S.M., Rula, A., Schmelzeisen, L., Sequeda, J.F., Staab, S., Zimmermann, A.: Knowledge graphs. ACM Comput. Sur...

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Herron, D., Dilworth, J.: Phase 1 Report (GUARD / G2049a): Ensuring Interoperable and Trustworthy Knowledge Graphs for Defence and National Security AI (May 2026),https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/37459/

    2026

  19. [27]

    In: The Semantic Web - ISWC 2011 - 10th International Semantic Web Conference

    Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Cuenca Grau, B.: LogMap: Logic-Based and Scalable Ontology Matching. In: The Semantic Web - ISWC 2011 - 10th International Semantic Web Conference. Lecture Improving Interoperability among Defence and National Security Ontologies 19 Notes in Computer Science,...

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    In: ECAI - 20th European Conference on Artifi- cial Intelligence

    Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Cuenca Grau, B., Zhou, Y ., Horrocks, I.: Large-scale interactive ontology matching: Algorithms and implementation. In: ECAI - 20th European Conference on Artifi- cial Intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 242, pp. 444–449....

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    In: 22nd International Seman- tic Web Conference (ISWC)

    Jonquet, C., Graybeal, J.B., Bouazzouni, S., Dorf, M., Fiore, N., Kechagioglou, X., Red- mond, T., Rosati, I., Skrenchuk, A., Vendetti, J., Musen, M.A.: Ontology repositories and semantic artefact catalogues with the ontoportal technology. In: 22nd International Seman- tic Web...

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Kaloroumakis, P.E., Smith, M.J.: Toward a Knowledge Graph of Cybersecurity Coun- termeasures. Tech. rep., MITRE Corporation (2021),https://d3fend.mitre.org/ resources/D3FEND.pdf

    2021

  23. [31]

    Future Gener

    Karabulut, E., Pileggi, S.F., Groth, P., Degeler, V .: Ontologies in digital twins: A systematic literature review. Future Gener. Comput. Syst.153, 442–456 (2024).https://doi.org/ 10.1016/J.FUTURE.2023.12.013

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Kazakov, Y ., Krötzsch, M., Simancík, F.: The incredible ELK - from polynomial procedures to efficient reasoning withELontologies. J. Autom. Reason.53(1), 1–61 (2014).https: //doi.org/10.1007/S10817-013-9296-3

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    In: Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J., Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Hassanzadeh, O., Trojahn, C

    Knorr, L., Portisch, J.: Fine-tom matcher results for OAEI 2021. In: Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J., Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Hassanzadeh, O., Trojahn, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Ontology Matching co-located with the 20th International Semantic Web Con- fer...

    2021

  26. [34]

    Sensors20(3) (2020).https://doi.org/10.3390/S20030879

    Köckemann, U., Alirezaie, M., Renoux, J., Tsiftes, N., Ahmed, M.U., Morberg, D., Lindén, M., Loutfi, A.: Open-Source Data Collection and Data Sets for Activity Recognition in Smart Homes. Sensors20(3) (2020).https://doi.org/10.3390/S20030879

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    In: Joint Ontology Workshops

    Leblanc, E., Nguyen, D., Balduccini, M., Regli, W., Kopena, J., Wambold, T.: Military on- tologies for information dissemination at the tactical edge. In: Joint Ontology Workshops. CEUR (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    CoRR abs/2510.16610(2025).https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2510.16610

    Lourenço, B., Adão, P., Ferreira, J.F., Marques, M.M., Vaz, C.: Structuring Security: A Sur- vey of Cybersecurity Ontologies, Semantic Log Processing, and LLMs Application. CoRR abs/2510.16610(2025).https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2510.16610

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    In: 19th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL 2026)

    Lushnei, S., Shumskyi, D., Shykula, S., Jiménez-Ruiz, E., d’Avila Garcez, A.: Large Lan- guage Models as Oracles for Ontology Alignment. In: 19th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL 2026). Association for Computational Ling...

    2026

  30. [38]

    In: 2019 XXI International Conference Complex Systems: Control and Modeling Problems (CSCMP)

    Maryasin, O.: Home Automation System Ontology for Digital Building Twin. In: 2019 XXI International Conference Complex Systems: Control and Modeling Problems (CSCMP). pp. 70–74 (2019).https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCMP45713.2019.8976546

    2019

  31. [39]

    Human Factors 45(4), 351–355 (2001),https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 273594666_Situation_Awareness_for_Military_Ground_Forces_ Current_Issues_and_Perspectives

    Matthews, M., Shattuck, L., Grham, S., Weeks, J., Endsley, M., Strater, L.: Situation Awareness for Military Ground Forces: Current Issues and Perspectives. Human Factors 45(4), 351–355 (2001),https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 273594666_Situation_Awareness_for_Military...

    2001

  32. [40]

    Meriah, I., Rabai, L.B.A., Khédri, R.: Building a comprehensive and multi-dimensional in- formation security ontology: elicitation process and OWL implementation. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 67(1), 167–195 (2025).https://doi.org/10.1007/S10115-024-02308-Y 20 J. Dilworth et al

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    In: 10th Conference on Semantic Technology for Intelligence, Defense, and Security

    Morosoff, P., Rudnicki, R., Bryant, J., Farrell, R., Smith, B.: Joint Doctrine Ontology: A Benchmark for Military Information Systems Interoperability. In: 10th Conference on Semantic Technology for Intelligence, Defense, and Security. CEUR Workshop Proceed- ings, vol. 1523. C...

    2015

  34. [42]

    In: Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Semantic Technology for Intelligence, Defense, and Security

    Mundie, D.A., Ruefle, R., Dorofee, A.J., Perl, S.J., McCloud, J., Collins, M.: An incident management ontology. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Semantic Technology for Intelligence, Defense, and Security. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1304, pp. 62–

  35. [43]

    NATO/MIP: THE JOINT C3 INFORMATION EXCHANGE DATA MODEL OVERVIEW. Tech. rep., NATO/MIP (2007),https://brainsciencesjournal.org/2007. JC3IEDM.pdf

    2007

  36. [44]

    ACM Trans

    Naveed, H., Khan, A.U., Qiu, S., Saqib, M., Anwar, S., Usman, M., Akhtar, N., Barnes, N., Mian, A.: A comprehensive overview of large language models. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol.16(5) (Aug 2025).https://doi.org/10.1145/3744746

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    Nucleic Acids Res.37(Web-Server-Issue), 170–173 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp440

    Noy, N.F., Shah, N.H., Whetzel, P.L., Dai, B., Dorf, M., Griffith, N., Jonquet, C., Rubin, D.L., Storey, M.D., Chute, C.G., Musen, M.A.: BioPortal: ontologies and integrated data resources at the click of a mouse. Nucleic Acids Res.37(Web-Server-Issue), 170–173 (2009), https:/...

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Semantic Technologies for Intelligence, Defense, and Security

    Obrst, L., Chase, P., Markeloff, R.: Developing an Ontology of the Cyber Security Do- main. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Semantic Technologies for Intelligence, Defense, and Security. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 966, pp. 49–

  39. [47]

    In: Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Semantic Technology for In- telligence, Defense, and Security

    Oltramari, A., Cranor, L.F., Walls, R.J., McDaniel, P.D.: Building an Ontology of Cy- ber Security. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Semantic Technology for In- telligence, Defense, and Security. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1304, pp. 54–

  40. [48]

    In: Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Ontology Matching co-located with the 20th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC)

    Portisch, J., Paulheim, H.: ALOD2Vec matcher results for OAEI 2021. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Ontology Matching co-located with the 20th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC). pp. 117–123. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR- WS.org (2021),https:...

    2021

  41. [49]

    In: 20th International Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM)

    Pour, M.A.N., Blomqvist, E., Cotovio, P.G., et al.: Results of the Ontology Alignment Eval- uation Initiative 2025. In: 20th International Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM). pp. 105–139 (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    In: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Con- text, Information and Ontologies, CIAO@EKAW

    Poveda-Villalón, M., Suárez-Figueroa, M.C., Garcia-Castro, R., Gómez-Pérez, A.: A Con- text Ontology for Mobile Environments. In: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Con- text, Information and Ontologies, CIAO@EKAW. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR- WS.org (2010),https://ceur...

    2010

  43. [51]

    EURASIP J

    Reinisch, C., Kofler, M.J., Iglesias, F., Kastner, W.: ThinkHome Energy Efficiency in Future Smart Homes. EURASIP J. Embed. Syst.2011(2011).https://doi.org/10.1155/ 2011/104617

    2011

  44. [52]

    ReCIBE, Revista electrónica de Computación, Informática, Biomédica y Electrónica9, C1– C18 (2021).https://doi.org/10.32870/recibe.v9i2.181

    Rivadeneira, W., Gómez, O.S.: Cybersecurity Ontologies: A Systematic Literature Review. ReCIBE, Revista electrónica de Computación, Informática, Biomédica y Electrónica9, C1– C18 (2021).https://doi.org/10.32870/recibe.v9i2.181

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    Sikos, L.F.: Cybersecurity Knowledge Graphs. Knowl. Inf. Syst.65(9), 3511–3531 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/S10115-023-01860-3 Improving Interoperability among Defence and National Security Ontologies 21

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    Solimando, A., Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Guerrini, G.: Minimizing conservativity violations in on- tology alignments: algorithms and evaluation. Knowl. Inf. Syst.51(3), 775–819 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/S10115-016-0983-3

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    In: 2nd International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics, WIMS

    Stavropoulos, T.G., Vrakas, D., Vlachava, D., Bassiliades, N.: BOnSAI: A Smart Building Ontology for Ambient Intelligence. In: 2nd International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics, WIMS. pp. 30:1–30:12. ACM (2012).https://doi.org/10. 1145/2254129.2254166

    2012

  48. [56]

    CEUR-WS.org (2012),https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-966/STIDS2012_T06_ ObrstEtAl_CyberOntology.pdf

    2012

  49. [57]

    In: 19th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES)

    Valero, J.M.J., Martínez, A.L., Sánchez, P.M.S., Navarro-Martínez, D., López, R.V ., Lacal, J.I.R., Vivar, A.L., Monge, M.A.S., Pérez, M.G., Pérez, G.M.: Unlocking the potential of knowledge graphs: A cyber defense ontology for a knowledge representation and reasoning system. ...

    2024

  50. [58]

    In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops

    Valiente, M.C., Machín, R., García-Barriocanal, E., Sicilia, M.Á.: An Ontology-Based Inte- grated Approach to Situation Awareness for High-Level Information Fusion in C4ISR. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops. pp. 513–527. Springer (2011)

    2011

  51. [59]

    Cybersecur.4(1), 31 (2021).https://doi

    Wang, Z., Zhu, H., Liu, P., Sun, L.: Social engineering in cybersecurity: a domain ontology and knowledge graph application examples. Cybersecur.4(1), 31 (2021).https://doi. org/10.1186/S42400-021-00094-6

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    In: Fur- bach, U., Shankar, N

    Tsarkov, D., Horrocks, I.: Fact++ description logic reasoner: System description. In: Fur- bach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) 3rd International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4130, pp. 292–297. Springer (2006). https://doi.or...

    2006 doi

  53. [61]

    CEUR-WS.org (2014),https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1304/STIDS2014_T08_ OltramariEtAl.pdf

    2014

  54. [64]

    In: Big Data and Security

    Yongqin, H., Xushan, C., Anlian, Y ., Shuo, P.: Research on application of knowledge graph in war archive based on big data. In: Big Data and Security. pp. 234–247. Springer Nature (2023)

    2023

  55. [65]

    Zamazal, O., Svátek, V .: The ten-year ontofarm and its fertilization within the onto-sphere. J. Web Semant.43, 46–53 (2017).https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WEBSEM.2017. 01.001

    2017 doi

  56. [71]

    CEUR-WS.org (2014),https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1304/STIDS2014_T09_ MundieEtAl.pdf

    2014

  57. [166]

    CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org (2021),https://ceur-ws.org/ Vol-3063/oaei21_paper8.pdf

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.