arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2107.09129

Thing Foundational Ontology: ThingFO v1.3's Terms, Properties, Relationships and Axioms

Luis Olsina
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This preprint specifies and defines all terms, properties, relationships and axioms of ThingFO (Thing Foundational Ontology) v1.3, which is a slightly updated version of its predecessor, ThingFO v1.2. It is an ontology for particular and universal Things placed at the foundational level in the context of a five-tier ontological architecture named FCD-OntoArch (Foundational, Core, Domain and instance Ontological Architecture for sciences). Figure 2 depicts its five tiers, which entail Foundational, Core, Top-Domain, Low-Domain and Instance levels. Two guidelines and three rules that guide the placement and constraints of ontologies in this ontological architecture are documented in a separate section. Each level is populated with ontological components or, in other words, ontologies. Ontologies at the same level can be related to each other, except at the foundational level, where only the ThingFO ontology is found. In addition, ontologies' terms and relationships at lower levels can be semantically enriched by ontologies' terms and relationships from the higher levels. ThingFO and ontologies at the core level such as ProcessCO, SituationCO, among others, are domain independent or neutral. ThingFO is made up of three main concepts, namely: Thing, Thing Category, and Assertion that represents human expressions about different aspects of particular and universal Things. Figure 1 shows the conceptualization of ThingFO specified in the UML language. Note that annotations of updates from the previous version (v1.2) to the current one (v1.3) can be found in Appendix A.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Luis Olsina. 2021-07-19. Thing Foundational Ontology: ThingFO v1.3's Terms, Properties, Relationships and Axioms. https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.09129

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗