# Middle Architecture Criteria

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.17757 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.17757/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 1 of its 47 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Apr 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Knowledge Graphs: Opportunities and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.13948/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Ontology Enabled Hybrid Modeling and Simulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.12290/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Mid-level ontologies are used to integrate terminologies and data across disparate domains. There are, however, no clear, defensible criteria for determining whether a given ontology should count as mid-level, because we lack a rigorous characterization of what the middle level of generality is supposed to contain. Attempts to provide such a characterization have failed, we believe, because they have focused on the goal of specifying what is characteristic of those single ontologies that have been advanced as mid-level ontologies. Unfortunately, single ontologies of this sort are generally a mixture of top- and mid-level, and sometimes even of domain-level terms. To gain clarity, we aim to specify the necessary and sufficient conditions for a collection of one or more ontologies to inhabit what we call a mid-level architecture.