Automated knowledge curation for biomedical ontologies is key to ensure that they remain comprehensive, high-quality and up-to-date. In the era of foundational language models, this study compares and analyzes three NLP paradigms for curation tasks: in-context learning (ICL), fine-tuning (FT), and supervised learning (ML). Using the Chemical Entities of Biological Interest (ChEBI) database as a model ontology, three curation tasks were devised. For ICL, three prompting strategies were employed with GPT-4, GPT-3.5, BioGPT. PubmedBERT was chosen for the FT paradigm. For ML, six embedding models were utilized for training Random Forest and Long-Short Term Memory models. Five setups were designed to assess ML and FT model performance across different data availability scenarios.Datasets for curation tasks included: task 1 (620,386), task 2 (611,430), and task 3 (617,381), maintaining a 50:50 positive versus negative ratio. For ICL models, GPT-4 achieved best accuracy scores of 0.916, 0.766 and 0.874 for tasks 1-3 respectively. In a direct comparison, ML (trained on ~260,000 triples) outperformed ICL in accuracy across all tasks. (accuracy differences: +.11, +.22 and +.17). Fine-tuned PubmedBERT performed similarly to leading ML models in tasks 1 & 2 (F1 differences: -.014 and +.002), but worse in task 3 (-.048). Simulations revealed performance declines in both ML and FT models with smaller and higher imbalanced training data. where ICL (particularly GPT-4) excelled in tasks 1 & 3. GPT-4 excelled in tasks 1 and 3 with less than 6,000 triples, surpassing ML/FT. ICL underperformed ML/FT in task 2.ICL-augmented foundation models can be good assistants for knowledge curation with correct prompting, however, not making ML and FT paradigms obsolete. The latter two require task-specific data to beat ICL. In such cases, ML relies on small pretrained embeddings, minimizing computational demands.