[Improvement]: Ask Ontos handbook — deferred follow-ups from PR #472 review

Title

Ask Ontos handbook — deferred follow-ups from PR #472 review

Body

Captures three items raised by @larsgeorge-db during the review of #472 (PR 1 of the Ask Ontos uplift) that we intentionally deferred from that PR to keep the scope focused. Filing here so they aren't lost.

1) Encode the handbook corpus as RDF / extend the Ontos ontology

@larsgeorge-db suggested that the handbook content might better live as an RDF-based extension on top of the Ontos ontology — making it SPARQL-queryable alongside customer ontologies, and dogfooding Ontos's own modeling story.

Why it's interesting

• Conceptually elegant: Ontos is an ontology platform, so encoding its own self-description as triples is real dogfooding.
• SPARQL-queryable from any consumer, not just Ask Ontos. A "tell me everything Ontos knows about contracts" query becomes possible alongside customer-ontology queries.
• Reuses the existing RDF + ontology infrastructure (triple store, ontology import, semantic links).
• After the concepts → handbook rename freed up the "Concept" namespace, this is now an architecturally clean path.

Why it's deferred

• Markdown has properties RDF doesn't fit well for the current corpus shape:
  • Narrative flow (the DQX walkthrough is 6 sequential steps — modeling that as triples loses readability).
  • Easy to author in any text editor, easy to review in a PR diff by non-RDF-literate contributors.
  • Headings give the LLM natural sections; triples lack inherent structure for prose.
• The current corpus is 14 files. Conversion overhead is high vs. the marginal queryability benefit at this scale.

Triggers to revisit

• Corpus passes ~50 docs and grep produces too many false-positive hits.
• A customer wants to SPARQL-query "what does Ontos know about X" alongside their own ontology.
• We need to render the same fact in multiple surfaces (UI tooltip + LLM context + API).

2) Embedding-based retrieval to replace grep

@larsgeorge-db noted that embeddings would unlock better recall for the handbook, and that #469 (Ontology Term Mapping — bulk suggest & apply) will need embedding infrastructure anyway.

Plan

• When the #469 work wires up embeddings (likely a Databricks vector-search index or a local FAISS for self-contained mode), search_ontos_handbook becomes a free-rider on that infrastructure.
• Embeddings replace the current grep ranking. Each section's body gets embedded; queries embed and similarity-search.
• Bonus: cross-lingual retrieval improves naturally (German query → English doc match via shared embedding space). This indirectly addresses the multi-language gap noted below.

Until then

• Grep is fine for the current 14-file corpus. Latency is single-digit ms, recall is acceptable, and the LLM can paraphrase raw markdown.

3) Full multi-locale translation of the handbook corpus

The handbook is English-only; the Ontos UI ships in 7 locales (en, de, es, fr, it, ja, nl). PR #472 added a prompt instruction telling the LLM to answer in the user's language but keep Ontos UI labels in English — that handles the common case but is not a substitute for native-language grounding material.

Why it's deferred

• Translation + maintenance overhead is high (every handbook edit ×7 locales).
• The LLM is reasonably good at on-the-fly translation from English source.
• Cheap-fix prompt rule (already shipped in #472) is likely sufficient for v1.

Triggers to revisit

• Customer evidence of friction (non-English users reporting that translated answers are off).
• The Tier 2 embedding work above makes multi-locale retrieval easier (just embed each translated doc into the same vector space).

Cross-links

• PR #472 — initial Ask Ontos uplift (where this feedback originated)
• #469 — Ontology Term Mapping (Bulk Suggest & Apply) — the natural home for embedding infrastructure
• #280 — Ask Ontos roadmap parent

This issue was written by Isaac.

Start by reading PR #472 and the linked context in #469 and #280. The issue records three deferred directions rather than naming a concrete implementation, file, or test; scope one direction first, with completion defined by an agreed design and actionable implementation plan.