- From: Pascal Hitzler <phitzler@googlemail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:19:05 -0500
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
well said, Axel. Pascal. On 8/28/2019 6:33 AM, Axel Polleres wrote: > FWIW, my view on it is that KG is a collective term that serves more as an umbrella for different approaches to collect, structure and process knowledge, incl. KR, but not restricted to. > This is also my take-home from the discussions in Dagtuhl and why we - deliberately - refrained from giving any more restricting definition. > >> There's the >> Semantic Web, there's Linked Data, now there's the Knowledge Graph. Each >> with a slightly different focus perhaps as you point out in your presentation, >> but with little substantive change. > > I would simply call this evolution, which FWIW is most of the time gradual. > >> There *are* fundamental problems with RDF. The main one is that it is >> impossible to coherently make statements about statements. >> [...] >> but those areas remain out of reach >> for SW/LD/KG so long as the underlying RDF doesn't change to allow >> it. > > I beg to disagree: there are several proposals on reification for RDF, there is RDF*, so things are moving on in exactly this direction. > There are approaches working in practice, such that the one taken in Wikidata which have been > shown to be workable within an RDF/SPARQL context, cf. Wikidata's query service. > > I.e., there is evolution and development, and that's a good thing, but this is an ongoing process and there is no sense in throwing away > all that has been done on RDF and SW and start from scratch... that was also the base message I wanted to convey in my talk slides, BTW. > >> And so, we are stuck. We can fix it, or we can keep inventing new >> names. > > IMHO, it's not about inventing names, it's about recognizing gaps and closing them, abotu not throwing out the baby with the bathtub and re-inventing the wheel, about combining > and evolving successful approaches... whether terminology/naming evolves over time as well is secondary. > > aqnyway, I kinda hope/suppose we're (readers of this list, at least) on the same page here anyway > > best regards, > Axel > -- > Prof. Dr. Axel Polleres > Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna > url: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.polleres.net_&d=DwIFAg&c=3buyMx9JlH1z22L_G5pM28wz_Ru6WjhVHwo-vpeS0Gk&r=TpLLn6m0QS9xFWETRsVn6EgCZn90oD7nTZw4u7dKTkE&m=axS8Lp21HtsDg-AJzOWQSB60AAAUfh0GkeE6AYjxvhE&s=BxZcF1D6L3FIDqngW0vU00EGIa9bNFrCNdFOJMa9XXI&e= twitter: @AxelPolleres > >> On 28.08.2019, at 12:36, William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> Well, link works for me, but in fact that was the pre-print version >>> of the report, the official link on the Dagstuhl page: >> >> Thanks for the link, Axel. I have no idea why it didn't work for me >> earlier, but it does now. I've read (quickly skimmed, really) the >> canonical version of the report. My tuppence worth follows. >> >> I'm a little puzzled about the Knowledge Graph. Is it a marketing term? >> The question is only a little facetious: quite a few of the reports are >> struggling to define what it is. We know that graphs are general structures >> for representing a variety of different things, that's a very old idea and >> it's very powerful (think objects and arrows). We know that going from >> discrete entities (e.g. labellings) to continuous ones is hard and unobvious >> so we get divisions in fields between graphs and rules on the one hand and >> statistics and neural networks on the other. Plenty of potentially productive >> open problems and questions lie that way. >> >> I think what Paola might be getting at is the way that we have continually >> invented new words for whatever it is we are doing here. There's the >> Semantic Web, there's Linked Data, now there's the Knowledge Graph. Each >> with a slightly different focus perhaps as you point out in your presentation, >> but with little substantive change. That's what I mean by marketing terms >> (easily recognised by the proper noun casing). >> >> There *are* fundamental problems with RDF. The main one is that it is >> impossible to coherently make statements about statements. Without that, >> we can't build hierarchies of statements and things like time and provenance >> and the like (mentioned in the report) can't be done. These are important >> and fascinating areas to research, but those areas remain out of reach >> for SW/LD/KG so long as the underlying RDF doesn't change to allow >> it. And so, we are stuck. We can fix it, or we can keep inventing new >> names. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> William Waites | wwaites@inf.ed.ac.uk >> Institute for Language, Cognition and Computation >> School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh >> >> -- >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >> >> > > -- Pascal Hitzler Lloyd T. Smith Creativity in Engineering Chair Kansas State University http://www.pascal-hitzler.de http://www.daselab.org http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2019 13:19:28 UTC