adplus-dvertising
frame-decoration

Question

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

a.

Mixing the meanings/intentions of datatype properties and classes

b.

Overusing pattern 4

c.

Using only pattern 1 for annotations

d.

Confusing object properties with data-type properties

Posted under Big Data Computing

Answer: (a).Mixing the meanings/intentions of datatype properties and classes Explanation:People without proper training in knowledge engineering often tend to mix the meanings/intentions of datatype properties and classes in semantic annotations.

Engage with the Community - Add Your Comment

Confused About the Answer? Ask for Details Here.

Know the Explanation? Add it Here.

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

Similar Questions

Discover Related MCQs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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