Scope of physics-based simulation artefacts

Fadi Al Machot; Jadran Vrabec; Martin Thomas Horsch

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Scope of physics-based simulation artefacts

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a two-axis 'object-objective abstractness diagram' for any physics-based simulation and argues that explainable-AI-ready metadata must record the objective, the simulated object, and the subject matter as a research…

desk verdict A useful synthesis on simulation scope and metadata; the diagram is a heuristic, not a validated instrument, and the case study overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06077 v1 pith:V6KYLQXL submitted 2024-12-08 physics.comp-ph

Martin Thomas Horsch , Fadi Al Machot , Jadran Vrabec This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.comp-ph

keywords simulationartefactsepistemicmetadataexplainable-AI-readyobject-objectiveabstractnessdiagramsubjectmatterresearchquestionMODAModGra

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the scope of a physics-based simulation—what it is for, what it is about, and what it applies to—can be captured by two independent dimensions: how abstract the objective is and how abstract the simulated object is. It proposes the object-objective abstractness diagram for placing any simulation use case on a landscape. It also identifies the minimal metadata that simulations need to be explainable-AI-ready: the complete model, the simulation input, the simulation output, and the knowledge claims drawn from them, together with the object, objective, and subject matter. For subject matter, it recommends documenting the research question being answered rather than attaching a bag-of-words topic label.

What carries the argument

The central object is the object-objective abstractness diagram, a two-axis visual landscape whose horizontal axis runs from technical to scientific objectives and whose vertical axis runs from idealized to actual simulated objects. The diagram carries the argument by providing a common reference frame in which use cases from different communities can be compared and by making visible the claim that the two axes vary independently. The second piece of machinery is the formalization of subject matter as a research question, i.e., a partition of the space of possible states of affairs; this is what lets metadata say what a simulation is about instead of merely labelling it with topic words. In the ontology, the simulation is treated as a sign process in which the model, input, and output are signs standing for the simulated object, and the agent's intention is attached to the action through a mediated relation.

What would settle it

Survey a defined corpus of simulation papers, for example all simulation articles from one research group across a decade, and attempt to place every use case on the object-objective abstractness diagram using only the documented objective and object status; any paper that resists placement and can only be located after adding a third dimension, such as a multiscale simulation whose object is abstract at one scale and concrete at another, would refute the paper's claim that two axes suffice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the scope of a simulation artefact is set by the epistemic status of the simulated object and by the kind of knowledge the simulation aims to produce, and that these two are independent. Along the objective axis, use is either technical, operating over a closed epistemic space where theory is used as given, or scientific, operating over an open epistemic space where theory can be revised. Along the object axis, the simulated system ranges from an actual physical object, as in a digital twin, to an idealized object that is defined by its model and need not exist in reality. The paper claims that every epistemic use of physics-based simulation can be positioned on this two-axis landscape and that this positioning should be part of the simulation's metadata. It further claims that the artefacts requiring documentation are the complete model, the simulation input, the simulation output, and the knowledge claims derived from them, and that the subject matter of these artefacts is best expressed as the research question they answer, with semantics that separate truth conditions from subject matter.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the abstractness of the objective and the abstractness of the simulated object are independent and together sufficient to position any epistemic simulation use case; if those two dimensions turn out to move together in some cases, or if a third dimension is required, the diagram and the metadata requirements derived from it would be incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Metadata standards built on the diagram would let any simulation work be positioned and compared with others solely from its documented objective and object status, without needing domain-specific topic vocabularies.
If subject matter is recorded as a research question, simulation outputs and knowledge claims can be retrieved by the question they answer, which makes workflows inspectable by human auditors and by AI systems reading the metadata.
The four artefact kinds—complete model, simulation input, simulation output, and knowledge claim—become the minimal core that any explainable-AI-ready metadata record for a simulation must contain.
The two-axis landscape can reveal coverage gaps in a research community, for example when most work clusters on technical objectives with idealized objects, exposing unexplored scientific use cases.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the paper does not pursue is to score a research community by its spread across the diagram, turning a descriptive landscape into a comparative metric for research portfolios.
The research-question formalization implies a concrete explainability test: an AI system should be able to recover the question behind a simulation from its metadata alone, which could be checked by query-generation experiments.
If the independence assumption fails for some subclass of simulations, the minimally invasive fix would be to add a third axis rather than to abandon the landscape idea.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The useful core is the synthesis: separating three senses of 'scope'—objective, subject matter, and object of reference—and proposing a two-axis diagram for the first two. The MODA/ModGra comparison in Table 1 is concrete and genuinely informative; it alone justifies reading the paper. The proposal to formalize subject matter as a research question rather than a bag-of-words label is well argued and gives the metadata requirements their strongest foundation.

What the paper doesn't do is validate the diagram. The two axes are asserted to be independent, and the nine-paper case study from one group, selected by citations, is presented as a demonstration. It isn't. The distribution only shows that the sample spreads across the diagram; it doesn't show that any combination of object abstractness and objective abstractness is coherent, nor that no third dimension is needed. The ordering in Eqs. (1) and (2) is subjective because 'abstractness' never gets an operational criterion. If the diagram is meant as a discussion aid, that's acceptable—illustrations don't require measurement theory. But the paper overreaches when it says the case study 'shows' the dimensions are independent.

The metadata requirements in Section 4.3 are the most durable part. They follow from the MODA/ModGra gap analysis, and the recommendation to encode subject matter as a query rather than a label is a concrete, implementable idea. The implementation leans on the authors' own MSO-EM ontologies, but those are public and the alignment with DOLCE is explicit, so that's not a circularity problem.

The self-citation count is high, but the cited work is real and mostly relevant. No quantitative fitting happens here, so the circularity burden is low.

Who should read this: anyone working on simulation data management, XAIR metadata, or ontology alignment for modelling workflows. It's a position paper with a clear proposal. The weak case study is a flaw but not a fatal one—it doesn't invalidate the conceptual synthesis. A serious referee could push for clearer operational definitions of the axes and a more honest framing of what the case study can show.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. It deserves referee time.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper discusses the scope of physics-based simulation artefacts and proposes metadata documentation requirements for explainable-AI-ready (XAIR) data and models. It analyzes two dimensions of scope: the objective of the simulation and the status of the simulated object, and it argues that subject matter should be formalized as a research question rather than as bag-of-words topic labels. The paper compares two European standards, MODA and ModGra, identifies common simulation artefacts, and proposes the object-objective abstractness diagram as a tool for positioning use cases in a two-dimensional landscape. It then derives a set of candidate metadata requirements and sketches an implementation in the MSO-EM ontology system aligned with DOLCE.

Significance. If the central claims are accepted as well-scoped proposals rather than as validated results, the paper makes a useful contribution to an active standardization discussion. Its concrete strengths are the careful comparison of MODA and ModGra in Table 1, the engagement with Durán's and Yablo's philosophical frameworks, the explicit knowledge-graph shape in Figure 3, and the transparent implementation in MSO-EM. The paper also makes a clear, falsifiable recommendation about subject-matter formalization. The main weakness is that the proposed diagram and the 'minimum requirements' label rest on claims of independence, sufficiency, and minimality that are asserted rather than demonstrated. The paper is internally consistent, but the strength of the conclusions currently exceeds the evidence provided.

major comments (3)

[§4.2, Eqs. (1)–(2), Fig. 2] The conclusion that the object and objective dimensions are independent is not supported by the case study. The sample consists of nine high-citation papers from a single research group, selected by citation count; the observed spread across the diagram shows only that these nine works occupy different positions, not that any combination of object abstractness and objective abstractness is coherent, nor that no third dimension is needed. This is load-bearing because the metadata requirements in Section 4.3 are derived from the two-dimensional framing. The authors should either present the diagram as an illustrative heuristic or supply an independent conceptual argument for independence and sufficiency.
[§2.1, §4.1, Eqs. (1)–(2)] The axes of the object-objective abstractness diagram lack operational definitions. The horizontal axis is associated with theory-driven versus exploratory strategies and the vertical axis with the degree of idealization of the simulated object, but no criterion is given for ordering use cases 'by abstractness of the objective' or 'by abstractness of the object' in equations (1) and (2). Without a rubric or a stated placement procedure, the ordering is subjective and the diagram cannot function as a reproducible analytical tool. At minimum, the paper should specify how an independent annotator would assign positions.
[§4.3–§4.4] The phrase 'minimum requirements' is not defended. The proposed set of concepts and relations is assembled from MODA, ModGra, and the authors' MSO-EM approach, but no argument shows that these concepts are necessary or jointly sufficient for documenting simulation scope. The implementation in Section 4.4 demonstrates feasibility, not minimality. The paper should rename these as 'candidate' or 'proposed' requirements, or add a concrete argument that omitting any listed concept would make the documentation insufficient for XAIR purposes.

minor comments (5)

[§2.1] The word 'specially' in 'specially for visualization purposes' should be 'especially'.
[§4.3] The sentence 'The E-R diagrams on the left side of Fig. 3 contains concepts...' has a subject-verb agreement error; 'contains' should be 'contain'.
[Table 1] The mapping between MODA's 'user case aspect (field 1.1)' and the paper's notion of 'simulation objective' is not explained; a sentence clarifying that the free-text MODA field is intended to capture the objective would improve the comparison.
[§2.1] The word 'obversely' is unusual in this context; 'conversely' or 'from the complementary perspective' would be clearer.
[Fig. 2] The placement of individual works in the case-study diagram is not reproducible from the text because no coordinates or detailed placement rule are given; adding a small table of placements would strengthen the illustration.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Case-study 'demonstration' of axis independence is circular; the core conceptual proposal is otherwise grounded in external standards and philosophy.

self definitional [Section 4.2 (case study), Fig. 2; the claim is preannounced in Section 2.1]
"The distribution of the works included in the case study across the landscape also shows that the status of the modelled object and the kind of work done with the model, in terms of what kind of knowledge is being pursued, are independent dimensions."

Section 2.1 asserts that 'the objective of a simulation and the status of the simulated object are two independent dimensions of scope' and promises a demonstration in Section 4.2. The case study then orders the sample along the very two axes that constitute the diagram, 'abstractness of the objective' and 'abstractness of the object', using the same unoperationalized notions of abstractness that were assumed in constructing the diagram. A scatter of points across a two-axis chart built from those two dimensions cannot establish their independence; any sample will show spread. The claimed demonstration therefore re-asserts the assumption rather than testing it, making the validation circular by construction.

full rationale

The paper is a conceptual/position work with no fitted numerical parameters, so no quantitative prediction reduces to a fit. Its metadata recommendations are grounded in external standards and sources: MODA and ModGra are CEN workshop agreements, the subject-matter discussion draws on Yablo and Plebani/Spolatore, and the implementation aligns with the external DOLCE foundational ontology. The self-citations, including the reference to prior work on epistemic metadata [26] and the MSO-EM implementation, are conventional and the cited prior work has independent content; they do not form a load-bearing self-citation chain. The one genuinely circular step is the case-study claim that the distribution of points in the object-objective abstractness diagram demonstrates the independence of the two axes, since the diagram and the axis orderings presuppose exactly that independence. This affects the supporting validation of the diagram but not the entire derivation, so a moderate score is appropriate.

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

The paper relies on several philosophical frameworks and the authors' prior ontology work. No numerical free parameters exist; the only hand-assigned values are the qualitative ordinal positions in the case study.

free parameters (1)

qualitative abstractness ranks for case study papers = ordinal positions in Eq. (1) and (2)
Assigned by the authors without a formal metric; used to plot Fig. 2 in the case study.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Yablo's theory of subject matter as a partition of logical space is correct and applicable to simulation metadata.
Adopted in Section 2.2 to argue that research questions, not topic labels, capture subject matter.
domain assumption Durán's taxonomy of theory-driven vs exploratory simulations is a valid way to characterize simulation objectives.
Used in Section 2.1 as the basis for the horizontal axis of the proposed diagram.
domain assumption Peircean semiotics adequately describes the relation between models and simulated systems.
Invoked in Sections 2.1 and 4.3 to structure the knowledge graph and metadata relations.
domain assumption DOLCE foundational ontology is an appropriate framework for simulation metadata.
Section 4.4 implements the proposed relations within DOLCE, using its endurant and perdurant distinctions.
ad hoc to paper Only the epistemic use of simulation is considered, excluding recreational or artistic uses.
Section 2.1 restricts the scope, which limits the claimed coverage of the diagram.

invented entities (1)

Object-objective abstractness diagram
purpose: Visualize and position simulation use cases on two axes: abstractness of the object and abstractness of the intention.
Proposed as a tool in Section 4.1; no external validation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scope of physics-based simulation artefacts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V6KYLQXL

@misc{pith2026241206077,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scope of physics-based simulation artefacts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V6KYLQXL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06077}
}

read the original abstract

Data and metadata documentation requirements for explainable-AI-ready (XAIR) models and data in physics-based simulation technology are discussed by analysing different perspectives from the literature on two core aspects: First, the scope of the simulation; this category is taken to include subject matter, the objective with which the simulation is conducted, and the object of reference, i.e., the simulated physical system or process. Second, the artefacts that need to be documented in order to make data and models XAIR, and modelling and simulation workflows explainable; two CEN workshop agreements, MODA and ModGra, are compared for this purpose. As a result, minimum requirements for an ontologization of the scope of simulation artefacts are formulated, and the object-objective abstractness diagram is proposed as a tool for visualizing the landscape of use cases for physics-based simulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06077 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** To obtain a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Object-objective abstractness diagram for the ca [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Left: E-R diagram with relations (diamonds) that s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

[1]

Collins , F

S. Collins , F. Genev a, N. Harrower , S. Hodson , S. Jones , L. Laaksonen, D. Mietchen , and R. Petrauskaité : 2018, Turning 19 F AIR into Reality: Final Report and Action Plan from the Euro pean Commission Expert Group on F AIR Data . Luxembourg: EU Publica- tions Oﬃce, ISBN 978-92-79-96547-0

work page 2018
[2]

Guizzardi : 2020, ‘Ontology, ontologies and the “I” of F AIR’

G. Guizzardi : 2020, ‘Ontology, ontologies and the “I” of F AIR’. Data Intelligence 2(1–2), 181–191

work page 2020
[3]

M. D. Wilkinson , M. Dumontier , Ĳ. J. Aalbersberg , G. Ap- pleton, M. Axton , A. Baak , N. Blomberg , J.-W. Boiten , L. B. da Sil v a Santos, P. E. Bourne , J. Bouwman , A. J. Brookes , T. Clark , M. Crosas , I. Dillo , O. Dumon , S. Edmunds , C. T. Evelo, R. Finkers , A. González Beltrán , A. J. G. Gray , P. Groth, C. Goble , J. S. Grethe , J. Heringa ,...

work page 2016
[4]

Al Machot , L

F. Al Machot , L. E. Córdov a López , A. T. Correia , M. T. Horsch, S. Scholze , S. Stephan , and S. Werth : 2024, ‘DCLXVI 2024’. Call for papers, AI4Work and BatCAT

work page 2024
[5]

Bashir : 2025, ‘F AIR and beyond: Evolving principles for modern data ecosystems’

M. Bashir : 2025, ‘F AIR and beyond: Evolving principles for modern data ecosystems’. In: Proceedings of DCLXVI 2024 . To appear

work page 2025
[6]

J. J. Casey and J. M. Durán : 2021, ‘Why the F AIR principles are not enough: Lost data and a case for F AIR+’. technical report , TU Delft

work page 2021
[7]

Corallo , A

A. Corallo , A. M. Crespino , V. Del Vecchio , M. Lazoi , and M. Marra : 2022, ‘Understanding and deﬁning dark data for the man- ufacturing industry’. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 70(2), 700–712

work page 2022
[8]

Schembera : 2021, ‘Like a rainbow in the dark: Metadata annota- tion for HPC applications in the age of dark data’

B. Schembera : 2021, ‘Like a rainbow in the dark: Metadata annota- tion for HPC applications in the age of dark data’. Journal of Super- computing 77, 8946–8966

work page 2021

Show all 72 references

[9]

Vogt , P

L. Vogt , P. Strömert , N. Matentzoglu , N. Karam , M. Kon- rad, M. Prinz , and R. Baum : 2024, ‘F AIR 2.0: Extending the 20 F AIR guiding principles to address semantic interoperabil ity’. arXiv: 2405.03345 [cs.DB]

2024 arXiv
[10]

Anders , C

I. Anders , C. Blanchi , D. Broeder , M. Hellström , S. Islam , T. Jejkal , L. Lannom , K. Peters-von Gehlen , R. Quick , A. Schlemmer, U. Schw ardmann, S. Soiland-Reyes , G. Stra wn, D. van Uytv anck, C. Weiland , P. Wittenburg , and C. Zwölf : 2023, ‘F AIR digital object tec...

2023
[11]

Weiland , S

C. Weiland , S. Islam , D. Broeder , I. Anders , and P. Witten- burg: 2022, ‘FDO machine actionability’. Technical report, F AI R Dig- ital Object Forum

2022
[12]

M. T. Horsch , B. Schembera , and H. A. Preisig : 2023, ‘Euro- pean standardization eﬀorts from F AIR toward explainable- AI-ready data documentation in materials modelling’. In: Proceedings of ICA- PAI 2023

2023
[13]

M. T. Horsch , S. Chiacchiera , I. T. Todorov , A. T. Correia , A. Dey, N. A. Konchakov a, S. Scholze, S. Stephan, K. Tøndel, A. Sarkar , M. H. Karray , F. Al Machot , and B. Schembera : 2024, ‘Exploration of core concepts required for mid- and do main-level ontology developme...

2024
[14]

J. M. Durán : 2023, ‘The non-theory-driven character of computer sim- ulations and their role as exploratory strategies’. Minds and Machines 33, 487–505

2023
[15]

Yablo : 2014, Aboutness

S. Yablo : 2014, Aboutness. Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0- 691-14495-5

2014
[16]

CW A 172 84:2018 E, CEN, Brussels

CEN-CENELEC Management Centre : 2018, ‘Materials mod- elling: Terminology, classiﬁcation and metadata’. CW A 172 84:2018 E, CEN, Brussels

2018
[17]

CW A 17960 :2022 E, CEN, Brussels

CEN-CENELEC Management Centre : 2022, ‘ModGra: A graph- ical representation of physical process models’. CW A 17960 :2022 E, CEN, Brussels

2022
[18]

Laurel : 1991, Computers as Theatre

B. Laurel : 1991, Computers as Theatre . Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, ISBN 978-0-201-51048-5. 21

1991
[19]

Roberts and L

D. Roberts and L. Greene : 2011, ‘The theatre of high-ﬁdelity sim- ulation education’. Nurse Education Today 31(7), 694–698

2011
[20]

Al v arado: 2023, ‘AI as an epistemic technology’

R. Al v arado: 2023, ‘AI as an epistemic technology’. Science and Engineering Ethics 29, 32

2023
[21]

Tulatz : 2018, Epistemologie als Reﬂexion wissenschaftlicher Praxen

K. Tulatz : 2018, Epistemologie als Reﬂexion wissenschaftlicher Praxen. Bielefeld: transcript, ISBN 978-3-8376-4212-4

2018
[22]

M. T. Horsch : 2021, ‘Mereosemiotics: Parts and signs’. In: Proceed- ings of JOWO 2021 . p. 3

2021
[23]

M. T. Horsch , S. Chiacchiera , B. Schembera , M. A. Seaton , and I. T. Todorov : 2021, ‘Semantic interoperability based on the Eu- ropean Materials and Modelling Ontology and its ontologica l paradigm: Mereosemiotics’. In: Proceedings of WCCM-ECCOMAS 2020

2021
[24]

J. M. Durán : 2018, Computer Simulations in Science and Engineering . Cham: Springer, ISBN 978-3-319-90880-9

2018
[25]

Steinle : 1997, ‘Entering new ﬁelds: Exploratory uses of experimen- tation’

F. Steinle : 1997, ‘Entering new ﬁelds: Exploratory uses of experimen- tation’. Philosophy of Science 64, S65–S74

1997
[26]

M. T. Horsch , S. Chiacchiera , G. Guev ara Carrión , M. Kohns, E. A. Müller , D. Šarić , S. Stephan , I. T. Todorov , J. Vrabec , and B. Schembera : 2023, ‘Epistemic metadata for com- putational engineering information systems’. In: Proceedings of FOIS

2023
[27]

Plebani and G

M. Plebani and G. Spolatore : 2021, ‘Subject matter: A modest proposal’. Philosophical Quarterly 71(3), 605–622

2021
[28]

Berto and P

F. Berto and P. Ha wke: 2022, ‘Two-component semantics’. In: F. Berto (ed.): Topics of Thought: The Logic of Knowledge, Belief, Imag- ination. Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19285749-1, pp. 21–59

2022
[29]

Cichosz : 2023, ‘Bag of words and embedding text representation methods for medical article classiﬁcation’

P. Cichosz : 2023, ‘Bag of words and embedding text representation methods for medical article classiﬁcation’. International Journal of Ap- plied Mathematics and Computer Science 33(4), 603–621

2023
[30]

Gizatullin and O

B. Gizatullin and O. Nevzorov a: 2024, ‘Comparative analysis of methods for topic modeling of mathematical documents’. In: Proceed- ings of DAMDID 2024 . to appear. 22

2024
[31]

M. T. Horsch , S. Chiacchiera, M. A. Seaton, I. T. Todorov , K. Šindelka, M. Lísal , B. Andreon , E. Bayro Kaiser , G. Mogni , G. Goldbeck , R. Kunze , G. Summer , A. Fiseni , H. Brüning , P. Schiffels, and W. L. Ca v alcanti: 2020, ‘Ontologies for the Virtual Materials Market...

2020
[32]

M. T. Horsch , S. Chiacchiera , W. L. Ca v alcanti , and B. Schembera: 2021, Data Technology in Materials Modelling . Cham: Springer, ISBN 978-3-030-68596-6

2021
[33]

Y. A. Zagorulko , E. A. Sidorov a, I. R. Akhmadeev a, and A. S. Sery: 2021, ‘Approach to automatic population of ontologies of s cien- tiﬁc subject domain using lexico-syntactic patterns’. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2099, 012028

2021
[34]

Grootendorst : 2022, ‘BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure’

M. Grootendorst : 2022, ‘BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure’. arXiv: 2203.05794 [cs.CL]

2022 arXiv
[35]

Adhitama, R

R. Adhitama, R. Kusumaningrum, and R. Gernowo: 2017, ‘Topic labeling towards news document collection based on latent D irichlet allocation and ontology’. In: Proceedings of ICICoS 2017 . pp. 247–252

2017
[36]

Ailem , A

M. Ailem , A. Salah , and M. Nadif : 2017, ‘Non-negative matrix factorization meets word embedding’. In: Proceedings of SIGIR ’17. pp. 1081–1084

2017
[37]

Schembera and J

B. Schembera and J. M. Durán : 2020, ‘Dark data as the new chal- lenge for big data science and the introduction of the scient iﬁc data oﬃcer’. Philosophy & Technology 33, 93–115

2020
[38]

Goldbeck , A

G. Goldbeck , A. Simperler , L. Bull , D. Gao , E. Ghedini , H. Karray, E. Kharlamov , D. Kiritsis , J. Lomax , N. Matent- zoglu, M. Noeske , F. Piroi , A. Sarkar , K. Vladisla vlev a, and A. W aaler: 2022, ‘The translator in knowledge management for inno- vation: Towards Indu...

2022
[39]

Mons : 2018, Data Stewardship for Open Science

B. Mons : 2018, Data Stewardship for Open Science . Boca Raton: CRC Press, ISBN 978-1-4987-5317-3

2018
[40]

A. F. De Baas (ed.): 2017, What Makes a Material Function? Let Me Compute the Ways . Luxembourg: EU Publications Oﬃce, ISBN 978-92-79-63185-6. 23

2017
[41]

CW A 17 815:2021 E, CEN, Brussels

CEN-CENELEC Management Centre : 2021, ‘Materials character- ization: Terminology, metadata and classiﬁcation’. CW A 17 815:2021 E, CEN, Brussels

2021
[42]

M. T. Horsch , C. Niethammer , G. Boccardo , P. Carbone , S. Chiacchiera , M. Chiricotto , J. D. Elliott , V. Lobaskin , P. Neumann , P. Schiffels , M. A. Seaton , I. T. Todorov , J. Vrabec, and W. L. Ca v alcanti: 2020, ‘Semantic interoperability and characterization of data ...

2020
[43]

M. T. Horsch , D. Toti, S. Chiacchiera, M. A. Seaton, G. Gold- beck, and I. T. Todorov : 2021, ‘OSMO: Ontology for simulation, modelling, and optimization’. In: Proceedings of JOWO 2021 . p. 47

2021
[44]

Del Nostro , G

P. Del Nostro , G. Goldbeck , and D. Toti : 2022, ‘CHAMEO: An ontology for the harmonisation of materials characterisat ion methodolo- gies’. Applied Ontology 17(3), 401–421

2022
[45]

P. D. Kolokathis, N. K. Sidiropoulos , D. Zouraris, D.-D. V ar- sou, D. G. Mintis , A. Tsoumanis , F. Dondero , T. E. Exner , H. Sarimveis , E. Chaideftou , M. Paparella , F. Nikiforou , A. Karakoltzidis , S. Karakitsios , D. Sarigiannis , J. Friis , G. Goldbeck , D. A. Winkle...

2024
[46]

Francisco Morgado , E

J. Francisco Morgado , E. Ghedini , G. Goldbeck , A. Hashi- bon, G. J. Schmitz , J. Friis , and A. de Baas : 2020, ‘Mechanical testing ontology for digital-twins: A roadmap based on EMMO ’. In: Proceedings of SeDiT 2020 . p. 3

2020
[47]

F. A. Zaccarino , C. Masolo , E. Ghedini , and S. Borgo : 2023, ‘From causation (and parthood) to time: The case of EMMO’. In : Proceedings of FOIS 2023 . pp. 92–106

2023
[48]

Klein , H

P. Klein , H. A. Preisig , M. T. Horsch , and N. Konchakov a: 2021, ‘Application of an ontology based process model const ruction tool for active protective coatings: Corrosion inhibitor relea se’. In: Proceed- ings of JOWO 2021 . p. 26. 24

2021
[49]

D. B. Cameron , W. Otten , H. Temmen, M. Hole, and G. Tolks- dorf: 2024, ‘DEXPI Process: Standardizing interoperable infor mation for process design and analysis’. Computers & Chemical Engineering 182, 108564

2024
[50]

A. T. El ve and H. A. Preisig : 2019, ‘From ontology to executable program code’. Computers & Chemical Engineering 122, 383–394

2019
[51]

H. A. Preisig : 2021, ‘Ontology-based process modelling: With exam- ples of physical topologies’. Processes 9(4), 592

2021
[52]

H. A. Preisig : 2022, ‘Documenting models comprehensively using a minimal graphical language’. In: Proceedings of PSE 2021+ . pp. 1021– 1026

2022
[53]

H. A. Preisig , T. F. Hagelien , J. Friis , P. Klein , and N. Kon- chakov a: 2021, ‘Ontologies in computational engineering’. In: Pro- ceedings of WCCM-ECCOMAS 2020

2021
[54]

C. A. Petri : 1962, ‘Kommunikation mit Automaten’. Ph.D. thesis, TH Darmstadt

1962
[55]

Zheng , J

X. Zheng , J. Lu , and D. Kiritsis : 2022, ‘The emergence of cogni- tive digital twin: Vision, challenges and opportunities’. International Journal of Production Research 60(24), 7610–7632

2022
[56]

Lenhard , S

J. Lenhard , S. Stephan , and H. Hasse: 2024, ‘A child of prediction: On the history, ontology, and computation of the Lennard-Jo nesium’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 103, 105–113

2024
[57]

W. K. A. Abbas and J. Vrabec : 2021, ‘Cascaded dual-loop organic Rankine cycle with alkanes and low global warming potential refrigerants as working ﬂuids’. Energy Conversion and Management 249, 114843

2021
[58]

R. S. Chatwell , G. Guev ara Carrión , Y. Gaponenko , V. Shevtsov a, and J. Vrabec : 2021, ‘Diﬀusion of the carbon diox- ide–ethanol mixture in the extended critical region’. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 23, 3106–3115

2021
[59]

Fingerhut , G

R. Fingerhut , G. Guev ara Carrión , I. Nitzke , D. Šarić , J. Marx, K. Langenbach , S. Prokopev , D. Celný , M. Bern- reuther, S. Stephan , M. Kohns, H. Hasse , and J. Vrabec : 2021, ‘ms2: A molecular simulation tool for thermodynamic proper ties, release 4.0’. Computer Physi...

2021
[60]

Guev ara Carrión, R

G. Guev ara Carrión, R. Fingergut , and J. Vrabec : 2021, ‘Den- sity and partial molar volumes of the liquid mixture water + m ethanol + ethanol + 2-propanol at 298.15 K and 0.1 MPa’. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data 66(6), 2425–2435

2021
[61]

Heinen , M

M. Heinen , M. Hoffmann , F. Diew ald, S. Seckler , K. Lan- genbach, and J. Vrabec : 2022, ‘Droplet coalescence by molecular dynamics and phase-ﬁeld modeling’. Physics of Fluids 34, 042006

2022
[62]

Homes , M

S. Homes , M. Heinen , J. Vrabec , and J. Fischer : 2021, ‘Evapora- tion driven by conductive heat transport’. Molecular Simulation 119(15– 16), e1836410

2021
[63]

Nitzke , R

I. Nitzke , R. Stierle , S. Stephan , M. Pfitzner , J. Gross , and J. Vrabec : 2023, ‘Phase equilibria and interface properties of hydro - carbon propellant-oxygen mixtures in the transcritical re gime’. Physics of Fluids 35, 032117

2023
[64]

Rößler , I

J. Rößler , I. Antolović , S. Stephan , and J. Vrabec : 2022, ‘As- sessment of thermodynamic models via Joule-Thomson invers ion’. Fluid Phase Equilibria 556, 113401

2022
[65]

Šarić , G

D. Šarić , G. Guev ara Carrión, and J. Vrabec : 2022, ‘Thermody- namics of supercritical carbon dioxide mixtures across the Widom line’. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 24, 28257–28270

2022
[66]

M. T. Horsch and B. Schembera : 2022, ‘Documentation of epis- temic metadata by a mid-level ontology of cognitive process es’. In: Pro- ceedings of JOWO 2022 . p. 2

2022
[67]

C. S. Peirce : 1955, ‘Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs’. In: J. Buchler (ed.): Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover, ISBN 978-0-48620217-4, pp. 98–119

1955
[68]

M. T. Horsch , D. Romanov , E. V alseth, S. Belouettar , L. E. Córdov a López, J. Glutting , M. A. Janssen , P. Klein , A. Lin- hart, M. A. Seaton , E. D. Sødahl , N. Vizcaino , S. Werth , S. Stephan, I. T. Todorov , S. Chiacchiera , and F. Al Machot : 2024, ‘Battery manufactu...

2024
[69]

Borgo and C

S. Borgo and C. Masolo: 2010, ‘Ontological foundations of DOLCE’. In: R. Poli, M. Healy, and A. Kameas (eds.): Theory and Applications 26 of Ontology: Computer Applications . Dordrecht: Springer, ISBN 978- 90-481-8846-8, pp. 279–295

2010
[70]

Paulheim and A

H. Paulheim and A. Gangemi: 2015, ‘Serving DBpedia with DOLCE: More than just adding a cherry on top’. In: Proceedings of ISWC 2015 . pp. 180–196

2015
[71]

Conte : 2012, ‘Rational, goal-oriented agents’

R. Conte : 2012, ‘Rational, goal-oriented agents’. In: R. A. Meyers (ed.): Computational Complexity . New York: Springer, ISBN 978-1- 4614-1799-6, pp. 2578–2593

2012
[72]

Masolo , L

C. Masolo , L. Vieu , R. Ferrario , S. Borgo , and D. Porrello : 2020, ‘Pluralities, collectives, and composites’. In: Proceedings of FOIS

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Collins , F

S. Collins , F. Genev a, N. Harrower , S. Hodson , S. Jones , L. Laaksonen, D. Mietchen , and R. Petrauskaité : 2018, Turning 19 F AIR into Reality: Final Report and Action Plan from the Euro pean Commission Expert Group on F AIR Data . Luxembourg: EU Publica- tions Oﬃce, ISBN 978-92-79-96547-0

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Guizzardi : 2020, ‘Ontology, ontologies and the “I” of F AIR’

G. Guizzardi : 2020, ‘Ontology, ontologies and the “I” of F AIR’. Data Intelligence 2(1–2), 181–191

work page 2020

[3] [3]

M. D. Wilkinson , M. Dumontier , Ĳ. J. Aalbersberg , G. Ap- pleton, M. Axton , A. Baak , N. Blomberg , J.-W. Boiten , L. B. da Sil v a Santos, P. E. Bourne , J. Bouwman , A. J. Brookes , T. Clark , M. Crosas , I. Dillo , O. Dumon , S. Edmunds , C. T. Evelo, R. Finkers , A. González Beltrán , A. J. G. Gray , P. Groth, C. Goble , J. S. Grethe , J. Heringa ,...

work page 2016

[4] [4]

Al Machot , L

F. Al Machot , L. E. Córdov a López , A. T. Correia , M. T. Horsch, S. Scholze , S. Stephan , and S. Werth : 2024, ‘DCLXVI 2024’. Call for papers, AI4Work and BatCAT

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Bashir : 2025, ‘F AIR and beyond: Evolving principles for modern data ecosystems’

M. Bashir : 2025, ‘F AIR and beyond: Evolving principles for modern data ecosystems’. In: Proceedings of DCLXVI 2024 . To appear

work page 2025

[6] [6]

J. J. Casey and J. M. Durán : 2021, ‘Why the F AIR principles are not enough: Lost data and a case for F AIR+’. technical report , TU Delft

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Corallo , A

A. Corallo , A. M. Crespino , V. Del Vecchio , M. Lazoi , and M. Marra : 2022, ‘Understanding and deﬁning dark data for the man- ufacturing industry’. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 70(2), 700–712

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Schembera : 2021, ‘Like a rainbow in the dark: Metadata annota- tion for HPC applications in the age of dark data’

B. Schembera : 2021, ‘Like a rainbow in the dark: Metadata annota- tion for HPC applications in the age of dark data’. Journal of Super- computing 77, 8946–8966

work page 2021