Re: Introducing the Knowledge Graph: things, not strings

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Barry Norton <barry.norton@ontotext.com>wrote:

> On 16/05/2012 23:55, Bernard Vatant wrote:
>
>>
>> Kingsley says they have Freebase, yes but Freebase stores only 22 million
>> entities according to their own stats, which makes less than 5% of the
>> overall figure, since Google claims 500 million nodes in the Knowledge
>> Graph, and growing.  So I guess they have also DBpedia and VIAF and
>> Geonames and you name it ... whatever open and structured they can put
>> their hands on. Linked data stuff whatever the format.
>>
>
> Hmmm, don't forget this claim from the same SVP earlier (thanks to Dan
> Brickley for pointing it out privately when the new story hit... via the
> Daily Mail!... a few days ago):
>
> "In 2010, we acquired Freebase, an open-source knowledge graph, and in the
> time since we've grown it from 12 million interconnected entities and
> attributes to over 200 million."
> https://plus.google.com/**115744399689614835150/posts/**3vLRVL7C4QS<https://plus.google.com/115744399689614835150/posts/3vLRVL7C4QS>
>
> I'm not so sure that the Knowledge Graph (tm) (keep out) (trespassers will
> be prosecuted) is so different from Freebase (yes, plus Geonames, etc.)
>
>
I think it's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lCSDOuqv1A  which touches on
Freebase vs Google Search. Basically, Freebase is good but doesn't scale
for raw data acquisition; so it was implied that google's search team was
looking at ways to extract and classify "objects" or information patterns
to ingest data to freebase-like types at a web scale.