Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Middle Architecture Criteria

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2404.17757 v2 pith:ZSBOFO4E submitted 2024-04-27 cs.AI cs.DBcs.LO

classification cs.AIcs.DBcs.LO
keywords mid-levelontologieswhatarchitecturebecausecharacterizationcriteriamiddle
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Mid-level ontologies are used to integrate terminologies and data across disparate domains. There are, however, no clear, defensible criteria for determining whether a given ontology should count as mid-level, because we lack a rigorous characterization of what the middle level of generality is supposed to contain. Attempts to provide such a characterization have failed, we believe, because they have focused on the goal of specifying what is characteristic of those single ontologies that have been advanced as mid-level ontologies. Unfortunately, single ontologies of this sort are generally a mixture of top- and mid-level, and sometimes even of domain-level terms. To gain clarity, we aim to specify the necessary and sufficient conditions for a collection of one or more ontologies to inhabit what we call a mid-level architecture.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Ontology Enabled Hybrid Modeling and Simulation

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A review proposing that separating 'what is modeled' from 'how it is modeled' ontologies improves hybrid simulation interoperability and reusability.

Pith tools