Table 7.
Comparison of knowledge representation methods.
| Representation method | Expressiveness (relation types) | Reasoning capability | Computational efficiency (query ms) | Task performance (knowledge consistency %) | Integration with DL | Scalability (adding new knowledge) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ontology hierarchy | Low (5 types) | Limited (subsumption only) | 8.3 ± 0.5 | 76.4 ± 3.8 | Moderate | Difficult (rigid structure) |
| Relational schema | Moderate (12 types) | Moderate (join operations) | 12.7 ± 0.8 | 81.2 ± 3.5 | Low | Moderate (schema evolution) |
| Semantic network | Moderate (10 types) | Moderate (spreading activation) | 15.4 ± 1.1 | 79.6 ± 4.1 | Moderate | Moderate |
| Rule-based system | High (explicit rules) | High (logical inference) | 22.8 ± 1.6 | 83.7 ± 3.2 | Low (discrete) | Difficult (rule conflicts) |
| Knowledge graph (ours) | High (27 types) | High (multi-hop reasoning) | 18.6 ± 1.2 | 91.2 ± 2.5 | High (embedding) | Easy (flexible extension) |
Bold values indicate the best performance for each metric/column among all compared methods.