>>10905251>>10906137This is OP, and this was my last message:
>>10904855This is my email, multicusp@protonmail.com.
>>10906137So the thing is that there is a shit tonne of stuff on ontologies. It's been around for ages, wiki says 1606. Most of the developments have been around 2000-2010 when the semantic web really started to kick off it seems. The semantic web went bust, and then google came in with the knowledge graph and people were okay with not using ontologies if they didn't have to. There is one big implementation of math ontologies by Kazan Federal university:
http://ontomathpro.org/Gonna be real with you though, I don't care for it. I think it was a valiant effort, but not the best execution. What I am talking about is something like an olog as shown here:
https://math.mit.edu/~dspivak/informatics/olog.pdfThis does have a bit of math rigor to it, but is fairly recent (by wiki: made in 2010). There was a paper done by David Spivak looking at creating analogies between spider silk and music that can be seen here:
https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-events/newsroom/spinning-melodies-silkThere was talk about resources. So if we look at the paper as shown before:
https://academic.oup.com/database/article/doi/10.1093/database/bay101/5116160There is Table 1 that goes over the techniques, domains, tools, etc. Pretty much if you look up python+whatever you are looking for you can get what you need. Usually you can find something that gives you close to c/c++ performance using only python.
