The paper proposes a formal test for validating crosswalks between the Information Exchange Standard (IES) and thirteen ontologies across seven sector groups, using coherence and conservativity criteria borrowed from logic-based alignment repair. It details a multi-stage process—matching, human review, SKOS correspondence certification, and HermiT reasoning—that identifies and resolves inconsistencies, demonstrating that pairwise certification does not compose and that a unified hub is required for a coherent digital twin ecosystem. The study shows that merging certified building crosswalks can expose hidden conflicts, such as unsatisfiable Brick classes, and that the core hub’s consistency depends on the inclusion of certain standards like the Open Energy Ontology and BFO 2020.
arXiv:2608.21914v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We align three upper ontologies that sit under UK and NATO defence data infrastructure: the Information Exchange Standard (IES), the Higher Quality Dat...
We align three upper ontologies that sit under UK and NATO defence data infrastructure: the Information Exchange Standard (IES), the Higher Quality Data Model (HQDM) that underpins the National Digita...
The paper critiques the Semantic Web’s failure to deliver machine‑interpretable knowledge, arguing that its standards omitted key elements—conditions for claims, operational grounding, and coverage scope—making truth, applicability, and boundary recognition impossible. It proposes a new framework, Semantic Knowledge Technologies, with a seven‑layer architecture and five measurable tests of understanding (check, connect, derive, act, delimit). The authors introduce concepts such as Large Knowledge Models, SLKMs, and a falsifiable definition of Semantic Artificial General Intelligence, presenting a research agenda to address these gaps.
arXiv:2608. 10644v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Extraction produces candidate entities and relationships; writing them into a graph is where identity is decided, and identity decisions are destructive in a way extraction errors are not.
arXiv:2608. 15147v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Machine intelligence has conquered the symbolic world but stalled at the physical one.
arXiv:2608.23370v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) recognise patterns but do not natively track the path of exclusions that a coherent discourse demands. When an input rests...
The paper investigates how different types of ontologies—curated, LLM-generated, and data-derived—serve as checkers for large language model agents answering questions over knowledge graphs. By evaluating these ontologies as prompt context, as checkers, or both, across both open-weight and proprietary agents on public and a large private graph, the study quantifies the trade-offs between errors caught and false alarms. It finds that curated ontologies can flag more correct answers than other sources but are only marginally more precise than random, and that combining sources or providing specific feedback offers limited benefits.
The paper proposes a four‑dimensional formal framework—Semantic Expressivity, Agentic Discoverability, Task‑Relative Grounding, and Epistemic Trust Scope—to extend current KG metadata standards (VoID and DCAT). It introduces the Agentic Affordance Profile (AAP), a semantic layer that enables agents to select, compose, and diagnose failures in knowledge graphs at planning time. A scholarly‑search example illustrates the framework and outlines a five‑point research agenda for scaling AAP‑based affordance matching.
arXiv:2608. 04457v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As "AI Scientists" emerge to drive research via the Model Context Protocol (MCP), systems relying on ephemeral scripts will fail.
arXiv:2608.21418v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Manufacturing knowledge graphs that integrate data from heterogeneous industrial systems face a trust deficit: consumers cannot determine whether queri...
The paper introduces a hierarchy of four increasingly strict faithfulness criteria—discrimination, logical admissibility, monotonic logical faithfulness, and probabilistic logical faithfulness—for evaluating knowledge base completion models, particularly when the target is a description logic knowledge base. It demonstrates that ranking accuracy alone does not guarantee logical faithfulness and shows that current embedding models fail to satisfy any of the criteria across the hierarchy. The authors provide a formal grounding for the strongest criterion using relative model counts and evaluate several models on εL ontologies, revealing gaps between performance metrics and logical correctness.
arXiv:2606. 27593v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce a categorical framework called ODYSSEY for constructing verifiable, local truth-preserving foundation models as compositions of foundries: building-block architectural components that specify a cover of local contexts, local representation families, restriction maps, gluing rules, obstruction policies, update obligations, and human-facing views.