Knowledge prompt chaining for semantic modeling

Jingge Du; Ning Pei Ding; Zaiwen Feng

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Knowledge prompt chaining for semantic modeling

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Knowledge Prompt Chaining claims to beat established semantic-modeling systems using only serialized ontologies, a few rows, and a two-step LLM prompt chain.

desk verdict A credible prompting pipeline for semantic modeling, but the dscrm gold-standard edit without rescored baselines makes the headline gains unverifiable. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08540 v1 pith:KSEUYDR5 submitted 2025-01-15 cs.CL cs.AIcs.DB

Ning Pei Ding , Jingge Du , Zaiwen Feng This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.DB

keywords semanticmodelinglabelingpromptchaininglargelanguagemodelsin-contextlearningontologyalignmentstructureddataknowledgegraphs

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper attempts to show that semantic modeling—mapping the columns of CSV, JSON, or XML files to classes and properties of a domain ontology, then linking them into a semantic graph—can be done by a no-fine-tuning chain of LLM prompts. Rather than building an integrated graph or training a dedicated model, the framework serializes the ontology and a few sample rows into a system prompt, first asks the LLM to label each attribute, then asks it to build the graph from those labels. On three real-world datasets it reports semantic-labeling precision of 96.9% or higher and semantic-modeling gains of 5.9%, 4.6%, and 0.6% over the best prior methods, using only three rows per table as input. The reader would care because it suggests that expensive, task-specific machinery for schema integration can be replaced by prompt engineering plus a graph-pruning step.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Knowledge Prompt Chaining pipeline: a system prompt that serializes the domain ontology and known semantic models into JSON, a two-step chain of prompts (semantic labeling, then graph building) that requires the LLM to give reasoning before each answer, and a graph-pruning step that deletes predicted nodes not linked to any attribute in the input. The ontology serialization supplies the structure and latent relationships of the graph; the chaining decomposes the task into the same two steps the gold-standard construction uses; the reasoning requirement works as a chain-of-thought; the pruning catches hallucinations by constraining outputs to the ontology-data connection.

What would settle it

Re-score the three baseline systems on the updated dscrm gold standard, applying the numbering and node-replacement rules in Appendix A with the same half-shot data splits, and check whether the reported 5.9% precision improvement over the prior best on dscrm survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a two-step prompt chain, with the ontology and example semantic models injected as serialized JSON in the system prompt, outperforms established automatic semantic-modeling methods even when given a fraction of the data those methods need. The first step generates semantic labels for each attribute; the second step feeds those labels back to the same model to construct a semantic graph, with a final pruning pass that removes hallucinated nodes that cannot connect to any attribute. The paper reports that this reaches 96.9% or higher semantic-labeling precision and 86.6% to 92.9% recall on the resulting semantic graphs, exceeding the reported scores of prior Steiner-tree, constraint-programming, and probabilistic-graph approaches on all three datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The headline gains depend on the assumption that the updated gold-standard used to score the new method is the same target the baselines were scored against; the paper updates the dscrm ground truth without releasing it or re-running the baselines on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported results hold, automatic semantic modeling can be done with no task-specific model or graph construction, relying instead on a general-purpose LLM and prompt design.
The two-step chain plus pruning yields a per-source runtime under 30 seconds in the reported settings, making the approach practical for interactive use.
Because only three rows are used per source, the approach cuts token usage relative to methods that consume entire tables, which could lower deployment cost.
The method works across three different ontologies and data formats, suggesting the pipeline transfers across domains.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: if the framework's gains generalize, the same two-step serialization-plus-chain recipe could be applied to related integration tasks such as schema matching and knowledge-graph population, where a prompt chain could replace trained matchers.
Editorial inference: the reported dependence on the updated dscrm gold standard means the headline comparison may partly reflect the relabeling; a direct re-run of prior baselines on the Appendix A rules would settle how much of the gain is architectural rather than due to the changed target.
Editorial inference: the framework's performance likely rests on the LLM's prior exposure to the domains and ontologies involved; on obscure or private ontologies, the three-row sample and expert rules may not be sufficient, so a stress test in a novel domain would be informative.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this paper before deciding whether to spend time on it. First, the method itself is a sensible, no-training combination of JSON serialization, knowledge prompts, chain-of-thought, and a two-step chain with graph pruning. Second, the central empirical claim—that it beats the prior best systems—is undercut by the authors' own disclosure that they revised the dscrm ground truth and did not re-run the baselines on the revised standard.

What is new: the paper applies LLM prompt chaining to semantic modeling of structured data, a task previously dominated by Steiner-tree, constraint, and probabilistic-graph approaches. The two-stage chain (labeling, then graph building) plus connectivity-based pruning is a simple but reasonable extension of known ingredients, and the reported results on dsedm and dsschema are not obviously compromised. The ablation study (Table 7) shows that prompting chaining and pruning each contribute, which is real evidence that the design matters. The idea that three rows per table can suffice for LLM-based modeling is worth testing in other settings.

Where the paper is soft: the dscrm comparison is not apples-to-apples. Section 5.1 and Appendix A say the ground-truth semantic models were updated by the authors, with specific changes like removing leaf nodes, renumbering E52_Time-Span nodes, and splitting E55_Type nodes. The Precision/Recall formulas treat the gold standard as the set of correct triples. If the baselines were scored on the original standard and the authors' method on the updated one, the +5.9% precision gain on dscrm could partly reflect relabeling rather than modeling ability. The paper does not state that Taheriyan, Serene, or PGM-SM were re-run on the updated standard, and the updated standard is not released. This is a load-bearing flaw for the headline claim. Also, the paper lacks error bars and significance tests across the random seeds, and the prompt templates are only summarized in a figure, not fully legible. The baselines' original scores are adopted without re-evaluation, which compounds the comparison issue.

On the other hand, the stress-test note is fair but not fatal to the whole paper. The dsedm and dsschema results, the ablation, and the token-efficiency point stand on their own. The method is not presented as a formal derivation; it is an empirical pipeline, and the evaluation is what fails to convince.

The paper deserves a serious referee despite the evaluation gap. A referee could demand a re-run of baselines on the updated dscrm standard, release of the updated gold standard, and error bars. The core prompting idea is plausible, and the authors are transparent about the update, which suggests honest engagement with the data. It is not a desk reject; it is a revise-and-resubmit candidate after the comparison is fixed.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Knowledge Prompt Chaining (KPC), a two-stage LLM prompt-chaining pipeline for semantic modeling of structured data. The method serializes the input data, the domain ontology, and a small set of known semantic models into JSON, incorporates these into system prompts, then chains a semantic-labeling step and a semantic-graph-building step, followed by a graph-pruning post-process. The evaluation uses three datasets (dscrm, dsedm, dsschema) and three LLMs (Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4 Turbo, DeepSeek-V2.5), comparing against Taheriyan, Serene, and PGM-SM. The paper claims semantic labeling precision of 96.9% or higher and semantic modeling gains of 5.9%, 4.6%, and 0.6% over prior methods, using only three rows of each table as input.

Significance. If the empirical comparison were valid, the framework would be interesting because it is training-free, few-shot, and uses reduced structured input while reporting high scores; the public code link is also a strength. However, the central comparison is compromised because the dscrm gold standard was modified by the authors (Section 5.1 and Appendix A) and the prior methods were apparently not re-evaluated on the updated standard. Since the Precision and Recall definitions in Section 5.4 are set-based comparisons against the gold standard, the reported improvements over baselines may reflect a relabeling of the target rather than modeling ability. The stress-test concern therefore lands: the headline claim is not verifiable from the submitted manuscript.

major comments (3)

[Section 5.1, Appendix A, Table 3] The authors state in Section 5.1 that 'we have updated the semantic models in the ground-truth datasets,' and Appendix A lists specific changes to dscrm: removal of leaf nodes not tied to table headers, renumbering of crm:E52_Time-Span nodes, context-dependent choice between crm:E21_Person and crm:E39_Actor, and split crm:E55_Type nodes. These changes alter the gold-standard set S in the Precision = |S∩S*|/|S*| and Recall = |S∩S*|/|S| definitions of Section 5.4. The paper does not state that Taheriyan, Serene, or PGM-SM were re-run against the updated standard; the Table 3 baseline numbers appear to be taken from the original publications. Consequently, the dscrm improvements in Table 3 (e.g., Precision 0.878 vs. 0.819 for PGM-SM) are computed against different gold standards for the two arms of the comparison, so the claimed superiority is not established. The updated standard is not released, and the original baseline predictions are not provided, so the comparison cannot be independently checked.
[Section 5.4, Tables 3-5] The experiments report point estimates only, with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests, even though LLM outputs are stochastic and the experimental description mentions only two random seeds. The smallest claimed gain, 0.6 percentage points on dsschema in Table 3, is within the range one would expect from seed variation, so the robustness of the improvement over Serene (0.866 vs. 0.860 precision) is not demonstrated.
[Section 5.3 and Section 5.1] The comparison with prior methods may also be mismatched in data preprocessing: the authors converted all table data to JSON, retained only three records per table, and replaced missing values with '<Empty>', but the paper does not report whether the published baseline scores were obtained on the same preprocessed inputs. Without this information, the 'reduced structured input' claim is not a controlled comparison, and even the absolute baseline scores cannot be taken as comparable.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Section 1] There are several typos and wording errors: 'insturction' in the abstract, 'sterilizes' in Section 1 (should be 'serializes'), 'Chian2' in Section 1, and 'prat' in Section 6.3 (should be 'part').
[Tables 2-6] The tables lack descriptive captions; for example, Table 2 is introduced only as a comparison of semantic labeling methods but its caption does not state the metric and dataset details. Adding captions that specify the metric, dataset, and model for each table would improve readability.
[Figure 2 and Section 4.2] Figure 2 gives a schematic of the prompt templates, but the exact system prompts and the precise JSON serialization format are not included. Since the method is prompt-based, releasing the full prompts or pointing to a versioned artifact would be important for reproducibility.
[Appendix A] The numbering rules for crm:E52_Time-Span nodes are not fully machine-checkable: when multiple such nodes remain after the birth/death pairs are numbered, the paper does not specify the order in which the remaining nodes are numbered.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Updated dscrm gold standard with baselines not re-scored makes the comparison partly self-referential.

other [Section 5.1 (Datasets), Section 5.4 (Evaluation Metrics), Appendix A (Updates of Semantic Models)]
"Please note that we have updated the semantic models in the ground-truth datasets to ensure that they are more reasonable and interpretable. Detailed information can be found in Appendix A. ... Guided by domain experts, we updated the gold standard model to ensure it is more logical and precise. ... Based on the table headers provided in the 28 data sources, we removed leaf nodes from the model that were not directly associated with any table headers. ... Precision = |S ∩ S∗| / |S∗|; Recall = |S ∩ S∗| / |S|, where S represents the gold standard semantic model for the data source X."

The headline performance claim is a set-overlap score against the gold standard S. The authors edit S for dscrm after seeing the data (removing leaf nodes tied to table headers, renumbering crm:E52_Time-Span nodes, choosing crm:E21_Person vs. crm:E39_Actor by data context, and splitting crm:E55_Type nodes), then Section 5.4 defines Precision and Recall entirely in terms of S. Any edit to S changes both the numerator and denominator of both metrics for fixed predictions. The paper does not state that the Taheriyan, Serene, or PGM-SM baselines were re-scored on the updated S, so the reported gains (e.g., +5.9% precision on dscrm) may reflect the relabeling rather than modeling ability.

full rationale

The core method is an LLM prompt-chaining pipeline with no trainable parameters and no mathematical derivation whose conclusion is reused as an input, so the framework itself is not circular. The circularity is confined to the evaluation loop. Section 5.1 states that the ground-truth semantic models were updated, and Appendix A details dscrm-specific edits that change which triples count as correct. Section 5.4 scores every system with Precision = |S∩S*|/|S*| and Recall = |S∩S*|/|S|, so S is a direct input to the headline numbers. The paper reports baseline scores without saying those systems were re-run on the updated S; if those scores are from the original publications, the claimed superiority is a comparison against a different gold standard and is partly an artifact of the authors' relabeling. The updated standard is not released and the baseline predictions are not provided, so the comparison cannot be independently checked. This is a partial circularity of the benchmark rather than of the derivation chain, which is why the score is 6 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on four untested assumptions: the three-row subsample is representative, the revised gold standard is valid and comparable, the pruning heuristic is safe, and JSON serialization preserves ontology structure. The paper provides no sensitivity analysis for these choices; the free parameters are manual settings, not optimized quantities.

free parameters (2)

row subsample size (size) = 3
Section 5.3 sets size=3 so only the first three records of each table are serialized into the prompt. This is a manual choice driven by token limits; no sensitivity analysis is provided, and later-arriving attributes could change the semantic model.
number of context example files (num_files) = one-shot: 1, quarter-shot: 25% of files, half-shot: 50% of files
Section 5.3 varies how many known semantic models are included as in-context examples. The paper does not justify the specific fractions beyond testing model capacity.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The first three records of each structured data source are sufficient to determine its full semantic model.
Section 5.3 sets size=3 and the framework never sees remaining rows; if later rows contain distinct attribute types or values, the generated labels and graph may be wrong.
ad hoc to paper The author-revised dscrm gold standard is the correct target and published baseline scores are comparable under it.
Section 5.1 announces the ground-truth update and Appendix A codifies it, but the updated file is not released and baselines are not recomputed.
domain assumption Pruning output nodes that cannot connect to serialized attributes removes hallucinations without removing correct nodes.
Section 4.3 applies this rule to every generated node; it assumes all valid semantic model nodes are directly reachable from the three-row attributes.
domain assumption JSON serialization of the ontology preserves enough graph structure for the LLM to reason accurately.
Section 4.2 serializes Nodes, Properties, and Potential triples as JSON; the lossy text conversion is assumed adequate for labeling and graph building.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Knowledge prompt chaining for semantic modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KSEUYDR5

@misc{pith2026250108540,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Knowledge prompt chaining for semantic modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KSEUYDR5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08540}
}

read the original abstract

The task of building semantics for structured data such as CSV, JSON, and XML files is highly relevant in the knowledge representation field. Even though we have a vast of structured data on the internet, mapping them to domain ontologies to build semantics for them is still very challenging as it requires the construction model to understand and learn graph-structured knowledge. Otherwise, the task will require human beings' effort and cost. In this paper, we proposed a novel automatic semantic modeling framework: Knowledge Prompt Chaining. It can serialize the graph-structured knowledge and inject it into the LLMs properly in a Prompt Chaining architecture. Through this knowledge injection and prompting chaining, the model in our framework can learn the structure information and latent space of the graph and generate the semantic labels and semantic graphs following the chains' insturction naturally. Based on experimental results, our method achieves better performance than existing leading techniques, despite using reduced structured input data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08540 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Prompt Templates for prompting LLMs The final output of prompt chaining is graph-structured semantic models. It means we can use the pruning method on the graph to remove the wrong nodes in the output that are created by hallucinations of the LLMs. We check each node in the output and prune the node which cannot connect to attributes a ∗ in X∗ . 5 Experimental Setup 5.1 Datasets We evaluated our method on three data… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Linear Relationship Between Complexity of Semantics and Performance Score [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

imap: Discovering complex semantic matches between database schemas

Robin Dhamankar, Yoonkyong Lee, AnHai Doan, Alon Halevy, and Pedro Domingos. imap: Discovering complex semantic matches between database schemas. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pages 383–394, 2004

work page 2004
[2]

Knoblock, Pedro A

Mohsen Taheriyan, Craig A. Knoblock, Pedro A. Szekely, and J. Ambite. Learning the semantics of structured data sources. J. Web Semant., 37-38:152–169, 2016

work page 2016
[3]

Machine learning and constraint programming for relational-to-ontology schema mapping

Diego De Uña, Nataliia Rümmele, Graeme Gange, Peter Schachte, and Peter J Stuckey. Machine learning and constraint programming for relational-to-ontology schema mapping. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2018, pages 1277–1283. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2018

work page 2018
[4]

Learning semantic models of data sources using probabilistic graphical models

Binh Vu, Craig Knoblock, and Jay Pujara. Learning semantic models of data sources using probabilistic graphical models. In The World Wide Web Conference, WWW ’19, page 1944–1953, New York, NY , USA, 2019. Association for Computing Machinery. 9 A PREPRINT - JANUARY 16, 2025

work page 1944
[5]

Semi: A semantic modeling machine to build knowledge graphs with graph neural networks

Giuseppe Futia, Antonio Vetrò, and Juan Carlos De Martin. Semi: A semantic modeling machine to build knowledge graphs with graph neural networks. SoftwareX, 12:100516, 2020

work page 2020
[6]

Semantic labeling: a domain-independent approach

Minh Pham, Suresh Alse, Craig A Knoblock, and Pedro Szekely. Semantic labeling: a domain-independent approach. In The Semantic Web–ISWC 2016: 15th International Semantic Web Conference, Kobe, Japan, October 17–21, 2016, Proceedings, Part I 15, pages 446–462. Springer, 2016

work page 2016
[7]

Evaluating approaches for supervised semantic labeling

Natalia Rümmele, Yuriy Tyshetskiy, and Alex Collins. Evaluating approaches for supervised semantic labeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.09788, 2018

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[8]

Oyamada, Shinji Nakadai, and Takeshi Okadome

Kunihiro Takeoka, M. Oyamada, Shinji Nakadai, and Takeshi Okadome. Meimei: An efficient probabilistic approach for semantically annotating tables. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2019

work page 2019

Show all 25 references

[9]

Towards better serialization of tabular data for few-shot classification

Sukriti Jaitly, Tanay Shah, Ashish Shugani, and Razik Singh Grewal. Towards better serialization of tabular data for few-shot classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.12464, 2023

2023 arXiv
[10]

Tabular representation, noisy operators, and impacts on table structure understanding tasks in llms

Ananya Singha, José Cambronero, Sumit Gulwani, Vu Le, and Chris Parnin. Tabular representation, noisy operators, and impacts on table structure understanding tasks in llms. In Table Representation Learning Workshop at NeurIPS 2023, December 2023

2023
[11]

Tabllm: Few-shot classification of tabular data with large language models

Stefan Hegselmann, Alejandro Buendia, Hunter Lang, Monica Agrawal, Xiaoyi Jiang, and David Sontag. Tabllm: Few-shot classification of tabular data with large language models. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 5549–5581. PMLR, 2023

2023
[12]

Tap4llm: Table provider on sampling, augmenting, and packing semi-structured data for large language model reasoning

Yuan Sui, Jiaru Zou, Mengyu Zhou, Xinyi He, Lun Du, Shi Han, and Dongmei Zhang. Tap4llm: Table provider on sampling, augmenting, and packing semi-structured data for large language model reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09039, 2023

2023 arXiv
[13]

Language models are realistic tabular data generators

Vadim Borisov, Kathrin Seßler, Tobias Leemann, Martin Pawelczyk, and Gjergji Kasneci. Language models are realistic tabular data generators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06280, 2022

2022 arXiv
[14]

Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

2022
[15]

Large language models are complex table parsers

Bowen Zhao, Changkai Ji, Yuejie Zhang, Wen He, Yingwen Wang, Qing Wang, Rui Feng, and Xiaobo Zhang. Large language models are complex table parsers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11521, 2023

2023 arXiv
[16]

Chain-of-table: Evolving tables in the reasoning chain for table understanding

Zilong Wang, Hao Zhang, Chun-Liang Li, Julian Martin Eisenschlos, Vincent Perot, Zifeng Wang, Lesly Miculicich, Yasuhisa Fujii, Jingbo Shang, Chen-Yu Lee, et al. Chain-of-table: Evolving tables in the reasoning chain for table understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04398, 2024

2024 arXiv
[17]

Kicgpt: Large language model with knowledge in context for knowledge graph completion

Yanbin Wei, Qiushi Huang, James T Kwok, and Yu Zhang. Kicgpt: Large language model with knowledge in context for knowledge graph completion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02389, 2024

2024 arXiv
[18]

Knowledge graph large language model (kg-llm) for link prediction

Dong Shu, Tianle Chen, Mingyu Jin, Chong Zhang, Mengnan Du, and Yongfeng Zhang. Knowledge graph large language model (kg-llm) for link prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07311, 2024

2024 arXiv
[19]

Soft knowledge prompt: Help external knowledge become a better teacher to instruct llm in knowledge-based vqa

Qunbo Wang, Ruyi Ji, Tianhao Peng, Wenjun Wu, Zechao Li, and Jing Liu. Soft knowledge prompt: Help external knowledge become a better teacher to instruct llm in knowledge-based vqa. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol...

2024
[20]

Sengamedu, and Christos Faloutsos

Xi Fang, Weijie Xu, Fiona Anting Tan, Ziqing Hu, Jiani Zhang, Yanjun Qi, Srinivasan H. Sengamedu, and Christos Faloutsos. Large language models (LLMs) on tabular data: Prediction, generation, and understanding - a survey. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024

2024
[21]

Meta prompting for agi systems

Yifan Zhang, Yang Yuan, and Andrew Chi-Chih Yao. Meta prompting for agi systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11482, 2023. APPENDIX A Updates of Semantic Models The semantic model updates in this study are applied exclusively to the dscrm dataset. Previous work revealed certain l...

2023 arXiv
[22]

All leaf nodes in the updated model must correspond to a table header in the data source, with names strictly aligned to ensure consistency

Removal of Irrelevant Leaf Nodes: Based on the table headers provided in the 28 data sources, we removed leaf nodes from the model that were not directly associated with any table headers. All leaf nodes in the updated model must correspond to a table header in the data source...
[23]

Numbering for Multiple crm:E52_Time-Span Nodes: When multiple crm:E52_Time-Span nodes exist in the model, the following numbering rules are applied. • If crm:E67_Birth and crm:E69_Death nodes are present, the nodes are numbered as < crm:E67_Birth1, crm:P4_has_time-span, crm:E5...
[24]

• If the data source primarily focuses on personal information about artists without referencing their works, the crm:E39_Actor node is used

Usage Guidelines for crm:E21_Person and crm:E39_Actor Nodes: The choice between crm:E21_Person and crm:E39_Actor nodes depends on the context of the data source. • If the data source primarily focuses on personal information about artists without referencing their works, the c...
[25]

Painting

Guidelines for the Use of crm:E55_Type Nodes: Two categories of crm:E55_Type nodes are employed across all models, differentiated based on the types referenced in the data source records. • The first category connects to crm:E22_Man-Made_Object via < crm:E22_Man-Made_Object, c...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

imap: Discovering complex semantic matches between database schemas

Robin Dhamankar, Yoonkyong Lee, AnHai Doan, Alon Halevy, and Pedro Domingos. imap: Discovering complex semantic matches between database schemas. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pages 383–394, 2004

work page 2004

[2] [2]

Knoblock, Pedro A

Mohsen Taheriyan, Craig A. Knoblock, Pedro A. Szekely, and J. Ambite. Learning the semantics of structured data sources. J. Web Semant., 37-38:152–169, 2016

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Machine learning and constraint programming for relational-to-ontology schema mapping

Diego De Uña, Nataliia Rümmele, Graeme Gange, Peter Schachte, and Peter J Stuckey. Machine learning and constraint programming for relational-to-ontology schema mapping. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2018, pages 1277–1283. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2018

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Learning semantic models of data sources using probabilistic graphical models

Binh Vu, Craig Knoblock, and Jay Pujara. Learning semantic models of data sources using probabilistic graphical models. In The World Wide Web Conference, WWW ’19, page 1944–1953, New York, NY , USA, 2019. Association for Computing Machinery. 9 A PREPRINT - JANUARY 16, 2025

work page 1944

[5] [5]

Semi: A semantic modeling machine to build knowledge graphs with graph neural networks

Giuseppe Futia, Antonio Vetrò, and Juan Carlos De Martin. Semi: A semantic modeling machine to build knowledge graphs with graph neural networks. SoftwareX, 12:100516, 2020

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Semantic labeling: a domain-independent approach

Minh Pham, Suresh Alse, Craig A Knoblock, and Pedro Szekely. Semantic labeling: a domain-independent approach. In The Semantic Web–ISWC 2016: 15th International Semantic Web Conference, Kobe, Japan, October 17–21, 2016, Proceedings, Part I 15, pages 446–462. Springer, 2016

work page 2016

[7] [7]

Evaluating approaches for supervised semantic labeling

Natalia Rümmele, Yuriy Tyshetskiy, and Alex Collins. Evaluating approaches for supervised semantic labeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.09788, 2018

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[8] [8]

Oyamada, Shinji Nakadai, and Takeshi Okadome

Kunihiro Takeoka, M. Oyamada, Shinji Nakadai, and Takeshi Okadome. Meimei: An efficient probabilistic approach for semantically annotating tables. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2019

work page 2019