Re: Trip Reports on Dagstuhl Seminar on Knowledge Graphs

Thank you Axel

Not intended to diminish the good work being done nor the value of the
workshop
for the closed group of participants

Superficiality intended as lack of perspectives and very narrow bias on the
subject of KG and KR.

To me, in the current climate, that sounds like indoctrination and
propaganda
(rather than a fair representation of the plurality of views of a the
research community)

Share more resources when available!

Thank you

PDM


On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 3:28 PM Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@wu.ac.at>
wrote:

> I frankly think you are misinterpreting the goals and outcomes of the
> Dagstuhl seminar significantly: the workshop was about creating mutual
> understanding and further directions and not taking sides... dismissing
> statistical inference (e.g. through embeddings) is as closed-minded as
> discmissing the years of research in KR and Reasoning that went into SW,
> Linked Data etc.... but - particularly when it come to *Web* data - the
> focus has shifted and both branches of SW/KR research have their successses
> and dis(advantages)... I tried to summarize my views on that (in what again
> you might be calling "superficial", I still wait for a justification of the
> use of that term ;-)) in my keynote at DEXA yesterday, slides here:
> http://polleres.net/presentations/20190827DEXA_keynote.pdf
>
> regards,
> Axel
> --
> Prof. Dr. Axel Polleres
> Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
> url: http://www.polleres.net/  twitter: @AxelPolleres
>
> > On 28.08.2019, at 09:13, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Joshua
> >
> > thanks for the opportunity to clarify and apologies for the brashness
> > of my remarks
> >
> > I did not mean that they KGs are not a type of KR, which arguably they
> are
> >
> > but they do not satisfy KR adequacy criteria in many ways (I ll address
> that more extensively
> > in an article) and come with limitations, an example linked below
> >
> > The  lack of acknowledgment of such limitations is startling for me,
> and shows superficiality given that the workshop participants are leading
> researchers and colleagues, and include best of the sw researchers crop
> otherwise in many ways
> >
> >
> > PDM
> >
> > this article explains some of the issues with KG, and especially using
> > KGs as sole KR methods
> >
> > https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D17-1184
> >   Unfortunately, information extraction approaches for KG construction
> must overcome complex, unreliable, and incomplete data. Many machine
> learning methods have been proposed to address the challenge of cleaning
> and completing KGs. One popular class of methods learn embeddings that
> translate entities and relationships into a latent subspace, then use this
> latent representation to derive additional, unobserved facts and score
> existing facts (Bordes et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2015)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 2:26 PM Joshua Shinavier <joshsh@uber.com>
> wrote:
> > Maybe I need to read some of the past threads for context, but this
> dismissive statement took me by surprise. In what way are KGs not KR? If
> that were a true, it would deeply affect my own outlook and messaging. I
> ought to at least try to understand your point of view. Are you referring
> to some very limited and traditional definition of KR? Insofar as an RDF
> statement is a claim about the world, the humblest RDF graph is a
> representation of knowledge. So...
> >
> > My $0.02 is that KG is a particular, typically simple and pragmatic form
> KR by a new name -- a pretty uncontroversial point of view, I would have
> thought. Not looking for a debate, just clarification.
> >
> > FWIW, I was not involved in the Dagstuhl event, but really appreciated
> the trip reports
> >
> > Josh
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:07 PM Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Juan and all
> >
> > I finally got hold of the report, courtesy of Alex P
> > /
> aic.ai.wu.ac.at/~polleres/publications/bona-etal-DagstuhlReport18371.pdf
> >
> > As a scholar in KR, I am concerned at the suggestion that KG are being
> proposed
> > as KR,  and at the superficiality of the content of this report, and I
> am aggravated to note the complete lack of acknowledgement of  the
> limitations of this approach.
> >
> > Sounds like a good example of ineptitude, inadequacy and corruption
> heavily influencing academic research and the field of AI KR
> >
> > *two cents still allowed?
> >
> > PDM
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 6:41 AM Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Last week there was a Dagstuhl seminar on: Knowledge Graphs: New
> Directions for Knowledge Representation on the Semantic Web
> > https://www.dagstuhl.de/en/program/calendar/semhp/?semnr=18371
> >
> > A formal report will be coming out soon. For the mean time, some folks
> have written their own reports. I'm sure folks in this community would be
> interest:
> >
> > Eva Blomqvist:
> http://blog.liu.se/semanticweb/2018/09/15/dagstuhl-seminar-on-knowledge-graphs/
> > Paul Groth:
> https://thinklinks.wordpress.com/2018/09/18/trip-report-dagstuhl-seminar-on-knowledge-graphs/
> > Juan Sequeda:
> http://www.juansequeda.com/blog/2018/09/18/trip-report-on-knowledge-graph-dagstuhl-seminar/
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Juan
> >
> > --
> > Juan Sequeda, Ph.D
> > www.juansequeda.com
>
>