adplus-dvertising
frame-decoration

Question

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

a.

To make them more complex

b.

To confuse ontology developers

c.

To provide human understandable ontology descriptions

d.

To satisfy legal requirements

Posted under Big Data Computing

Answer: (c).To provide human understandable ontology descriptions Explanation:Ontologies are commented in both Estonian and English languages during the implementation process to provide human understandable ontology descriptions. This makes the ontologies accessible and comprehensible to a wider audience, including both Estonian and English speakers.

Engage with the Community - Add Your Comment

Confused About the Answer? Ask for Details Here.

Know the Explanation? Add it Here.

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

Similar Questions

Discover Related MCQs

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?

Q. Which pattern is used to describe relations between subjects and relevant data objects when dealing with ontologies of higher modularity?

Q. What tendency do people without proper training in knowledge engineering often exhibit in semantic annotations?

Q. Why is it encouraged to design data models and interfaces to keep semantic descriptions simple?

Q. What is the main intuition behind using semantic annotations for redundancy detection in information system interfaces?