adplus-dvertising
frame-decoration

Question

What strategy is chosen for ontology conceptualization in the early implementation phase?

a.

Top-down approach

b.

Bottom-up approach

c.

Middle-out conceptualization strategy

d.

Generalization-first approach

Posted under Big Data Computing

Answer: (c).Middle-out conceptualization strategy Explanation:In the early implementation phase, the middle-out conceptualization strategy is chosen. This strategy allows domain experts to start with central concepts of a domain and move towards more general or more specific concepts as needed. It strikes a balance between top-down and bottom-up approaches, making it easier for domain experts to identify and work with central concepts.

Engage with the Community - Add Your Comment

Confused About the Answer? Ask for Details Here.

Know the Explanation? Add it Here.

Q. What strategy is chosen for ontology conceptualization in the early implementation phase?

Similar Questions

Discover Related MCQs

Q. How does the conceptualization activity start in the early implementation phase of ontology development?

Q. What is the purpose of the early implementation phase in ontology development?

Q. When are attributes of individuals of concepts typically added in the ontology implementation process?

Q. Why are ontologies commented in both Estonian and English languages during the implementation process?

Q. What is the current status of the ontology development methodology in Estonia?

Q. What is the planned improvement for the ontology development methodology in the future?

Q. What is the purpose of creating bindings between applications, data, and ontology elements in the context of ontologies?

Q. What are some of the initial applications of the Estonian semantic interoperability framework?

Q. Why is linking meta-data to artifacts themselves preferred in the context of ontologies?

Q. What are the three attributes defined by SAWSDL for expressing the semantics of schema elements?

Q. What constraint was imposed on the usage of SAWSDL in the Estonian e-government case study regarding the formal definition of semantic concepts?

Q. When are references to multiple ontologies allowed for describing the semantics of the same WSDL element in the Estonian e-government case study?

Q. What is the difference between top-level and bottom-level annotations in the context of SAWSDL?

Q. What is the main concern in services and data definitions from the annotation point of view?

Q. In Pattern 1 (URIdtp), when is a reference to a data-type property in an ontology sufficient for annotation?

Q. What should be considered when writing one-element annotations using Pattern 1 (URIdtp)?

Q. In which cases should Pattern 1 (URIdtp) be applied for semantic annotations?

Q. Which pattern combines elements of developed ontologies to explicitly state semantics of data entity attributes more precisely?

Q. When is Pattern 2—URIc URIdtp applied for semantic annotations?

Q. Which semantic description pattern is suitable for annotating data attributes that are not scoped to a particular subject type?