Summary of Middle Architecture Criteria, by John Beverley et al.
Middle Architecture Criteria
by John Beverley, Giacomo De Colle, Mark Jensen, Carter Benson, Barry Smith
First submitted to arxiv on: 27 Apr 2024
Categories
- Main: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
- Secondary: Databases (cs.DB); Logic in Computer Science (cs.LO)
GrooveSquid.com Paper Summaries
GrooveSquid.com’s goal is to make artificial intelligence research accessible by summarizing AI papers in simpler terms. Each summary below covers the same AI paper, written at different levels of difficulty. The medium difficulty and low difficulty versions are original summaries written by GrooveSquid.com, while the high difficulty version is the paper’s original abstract. Feel free to learn from the version that suits you best!
| Summary difficulty | Written by | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| High | Paper authors | High Difficulty Summary Read the original abstract here |
| Medium | GrooveSquid.com (original content) | Medium Difficulty Summary The paper addresses the lack of clear criteria for determining whether an ontology is mid-level. Mid-level ontologies integrate data across domains, but current attempts to characterize the middle level have failed due to focusing on individual ontologies that are often a mix of top-, mid-, and domain-level terms. The authors aim to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for a collection of ontologies to inhabit a mid-level architecture. |
| Low | GrooveSquid.com (original content) | Low Difficulty Summary Researchers are trying to figure out what makes an “ontology” (a way of organizing data) “mid-level”. Right now, it’s hard to decide if an ontology is mid-level because we don’t have clear rules. Some people tried to make those rules before, but they didn’t work because they only looked at individual ontologies that are actually a mix of different levels. The authors want to find the right way to define what makes a group of ontologies “mid-level”. |
