Two decades ago, the Semantic Web Services community was asked how agents with different ontological commitments could discover, compose, and invoke web services coherently. The response was OWL-S and WSMO: formally grounded capability descriptions specifying what a service could do, what the agent must already know for invocation to be epistemically sound, and how ontological mismatches could be formally bridged. Current KG metadata standards such as VoID and DCAT describe what a KG contains, yet say nothing about what a specific agent can prove from it, what closure assumptions govern empty results, or whether the agent's task vocabulary is grounded in the schema. Furthermore, in deployed KGs the governing schema DL and the operative entailment regime can diverge: an epistemic failure mode invisible to current metadata. We revisit and extend these insights for the KG setting with a four-dimensional formal framework; Semantic Expressivity, Agentic Discoverability, Task-Relative Grounding, and Epistemic Trust Scope, from which we derive the Agentic Affordance Profile (AAP): a semantic layer above VoID and DCAT enabling principled KG selection, composition, and failure diagnosis at agent planning time. The four dimensions operationalise the affordance structure of the Ontological Continuum at the individual-agent level, specifically for \kg selection, composition, and failure diagnosis. A worked example drawn from a scholarly-search task concretely grounds the framework, and identifies the formal, computational, and engineering work needed to realise AAP-based affordance matching at scale though a five-point research agenda.
As information ecosystems grow more heterogeneous, both humans and artificial agents increasingly face a simple yet unresolved question: when seeking knowledge, whom should we ask, and why? Inspired by how people intuitively "read a room", this paper introduces the concept of knowledge affordance (KA) to systematize how agents identify meaningful opportunities for information seeking in hybrid human-AI environments. Rather than introducing a fully formed framework, we propose KAs as declarative, semantically grounded descriptions of what a knowledge source can offer, for which kinds of questions, and with which contextual properties. Additionally, we suggest that KAs are relational, possibly emerging from the interplay between the agent's task, preferences and situational factors. Our contribution is thus a conceptual proposal that connects different research streams, including affordances, semantic web services, knowledge engineering and querying, and mutual intelligibility. We sketch possible research directions to build KA-aware systems that navigate information spaces with greater transparency, adaptability and shared understanding.
Agentic discovery has shown that LLM-driven search can find novel algorithms, designs, and code under benchmark conditions. Translating the paradigm to multi-system data backends surfaces a harder problem: the search space is heterogeneous, the verifier is whether a deployed stack actually runs, and composition knowledge is unevenly captured in pretraining. Unbounded agentic discovery, a coding agent iterating on failure-log feedback, fails to converge consistently on a working stack even when iteration and explicit composition knowledge are added. We propose Declarative Data Services (DDS), an architecture for structured agentic discovery of data-system compositions from declarative user intent. The framework owns four typed contracts at successive layers (intent, operator DAG, per-system skills, runtime attribution) that decompose the global search into bounded sub-searches; sub-agents search each typed space, while the framework provides the channels by which knowledge flows forward as inline skill citations and errors route backward as typed signals. As a proof of life on a trading-backend workload, DDS converges where unbounded discovery does not; runtime failures become skill patches that the next deployment cites inline. We position this as an early prototype reporting lessons from real-world data-system composition.
In the era of autonomous agents, machine-actionable data is critical for data-driven workflows. For more than a decade, semantic metadata like schema.org has anchored the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) for machine-actionable data and enabled discovery tools like Google Dataset Search. However, the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) capable of navigating the unstructured web raises a fundamental question: Is semantic metadata still necessary for agentic data discovery, or can agents reliably retrieve actionable data directly from the web? We present a comparative analysis of agentic data retrieval across two distinct environments: a Baseline Agent searching billions of open-web documents, and a Semantic Agent leveraging a corpus of 90 million datasets using schema.org. We deploy an "LLM-as-a-judge" evaluation pipeline, mapped directly to the FAIR principles, to assess the semantic relevance, data accessibility, and computational utility of the retrieved data. Our results reveal a clear divergence. The Semantic Agent excels at retrieving actionable data, achieving a 44.9% higher precision for metadata-rich registries and a 46.6% higher precision for pages with machine-readable downloads among its returned results. Conversely, the Baseline Agent frequently suffers "Last-Mile Utility" failures, retrieving prose-heavy pages (20.1% of results) and portal landing pages (8.5%) rather than actual data pages. While the Baseline Agent achieves higher coverage by answering 40% more questions, the Semantic Agent delivers greater accuracy, achieving 65.7% higher overall precision in retrieving FAIR-compliant datasets. We conclude that while unstructured retrieval supports broad exploratory tasks, structured ecosystems remain the indispensable foundation for reliable, execution-oriented autonomous workflows.