Re: What is a Knowledge Graph? CORRECTION

Hi All,

My take on the question:

http://www.mkbergman.com/2244/a-common-sense-view-of-knowledge-graphs/

Mike

On 6/25/2019 11:40 PM, hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl wrote:
>
> Hi Pat,
>
> +1 , that’s why we (the process industries) have an upper ontology, 
> defined in ISO 15926-2 <http://15926.org/topics/data-model/index.htm>, 
> with 218 entity types and the reference data library of ISO 15926-4 
> <http://15926.org/topics/reference-data/index.htm> with 39,000 classes.
>
> Application data are mapped to templates (212 small models, each using 
> some of those 218 entity types), in RDF, validated with SHACL, and 
> stored in a triple store.
>
> Although this doesn’t cover the entire universe, it does cover the 
> technical and activity life-cycle information of a process plant (oil, 
> chemical, food, etc), integrated from cradle to grave.
>
> Regards, Hans
>
> __________________________________________
>
> *From:*Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
> *Sent:* dinsdag 25 juni 2019 19:22
> *To:* ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <metadataportals@yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>; Paola Di Maio 
> <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>; Amirouche Boubekki 
> <amirouche.boubekki@gmail.com>; Chris Harding <chris@lacibus.net>; 
> xyzscy <1047571207@qq.com>; semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: What is a Knowledge Graph? CORRECTION
>
>
>
>     On Jun 23, 2019, at 5:35 PM, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program
>     <metadataportals@yahoo.com <mailto:metadataportals@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>     Again, let us look at the issue at hand. Artificial intelligence
>     requires we represent knowledge in some format. All forms brought
>     to the fore so far stick to a pretty simple way of representing
>     knowledge.
>
> Most (all?) of the KR proposals put forward in AI or cognitive science 
> work have been some subset of first-order predicate logic, using a 
> variety of surface notations. There are some fairly deep results which 
> suggest that any computably effective KR notation will not be /more/ 
> expressive than FO logic. So FOL seems like a good ‘reference’ 
> benchmark for KR expressivity.
>
>     What we should be looking for is a generalized form in which
>     objects can be linked. The graph is an obvious form.
>
>     But we are focusing to much on the nuts and bolts level.
>
>     Since it is the generally accepted intention to use AI in all
>     walks of professional, commercial, personal and academic life, we
>     should be looking at the various ways of representing knowledge.
>
>     Otherwise we end up creating knowledge representation silos.
>
> Avoiding KR silos was one of the primary goals of the entire 
> semantic-web linked-data initiative. But this has many aspects. First, 
> we need to agree to all use a common basic notation. Triples (=RDF 
> =Knowledge Graph =JSON-LD) has emerged as the popular choice. Getting 
> just this much agreement has taken 15 years and thousands of man-hours 
> of strenuous effort and bitterly contested compromises, so let us not 
> try to undo any of that, no matter what the imperfections are of the 
> final choice.
>
> The next stage, which we are just getting started on, involves 
> agreeing on a common vocabulary for referring to things, or perhaps a 
> universal mechanism for clearly indicating that your name for 
> something means the same as my name for that same thing. This seems to 
> be much harder than the semantic KR pioneers anticipated.
>
> The third stage involves having a global agreement on the ontological 
> foundations of our descriptions, what used to be called the ‘upper 
> level ontology’. This is where we get into actual metaphysical 
> disagreements about the nature of reality (are physical objects 
> extended in time? How do we handle vague boundaries? What are the 
> relationships between written tokens, images, symbols, conventions and 
> the things they represent? What is a ‘background’? What is a ‘shape’? 
> Is a bronze statue the same kind of thing as a piece of bronze? What 
> changes when someone signs a contract? Etc. etc., etc.) This is where 
> AI-KR and more recently, applied ontology engineering (not to mention 
> philosophy) has been working for the past 40 or 50 years, and I see 
> very little hope of any clear agreements acceptable to a large 
> percentage of the world’s users.
>
>
>
>     Category theory diagrams, graphs and Feynman diagrams are three
>     well known forms of representing knowledge graphs, but only in
>     semantic web technologies we specify tuples, a restrictive form of
>     representation.
>
> Category diagrams and Feynman diagrams are meaningful only within 
> highly restricted and formal fields (category theory and quantum 
> physics, respectively) so have little to do with general KR. If your 
> point is that diagrams are useful, one can of course point to many 
> examples of them being useful to human users, but this does not make 
> them obviously useful in computer applications.
>
> Tuples are not more restrictive than graphs, since a collection of 
> tuples is simply one way to implement a graph. Tuple stores ARE graphs.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Pat Hayes
>
>
>
>     Milton Ponson
>     GSM: +297 747 8280
>     PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
>     Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
>     *Project Paradigm*: Bringing the ICT tools for sustainable
>     development to all stakeholders worldwide through collaborative
>     research on applied mathematics, advanced modeling, software and
>     standards development
>
>     On Sunday, June 23, 2019, 3:57:01 AM ADT, Paola Di Maio
>     <paoladimaio10@gmail.com <mailto:paoladimaio10@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Chunks are also used in NLP (which is part of/related to CS either
>     way)
>
>     aka tokens
>
>     Various useful references come up on searching chunks as tokens
>
>     https://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.2/os/spec/archSpec/chunking.html
>
>     https://www.oxygenxml.com/doc/versions/21.1/ug-editor/topics/eppo-chunking.html
>
>     On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 1:12 AM Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org
>     <mailto:dsr@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
>             On 22 Jun 2019, at 14:54, Amirouche Boubekki
>             <amirouche.boubekki@gmail.com
>             <mailto:amirouche.boubekki@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             Le ven. 21 juin 2019 à 16:27, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org
>             <mailto:dsr@w3.org>> a écrit :
>
>                 Researchers in Cognitive Science have used graphs of
>                 chunks to represent declarative knowledge for decades,
>                 and chunk is their name for an n-tuple.
>
>             I tried to lookup "graph of chunks" related to cognitive
>             science. I could not find anything interesting outside
>             this white paper about "accelerating science" [0] that
>             intersect with my goals.
>
>             [0]
>             https://cra.org/ccc/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/02/Accelerating-Science-Whitepaper-CCC-Final2.pdf
>
>         Chunks are used on cognitive architectures, such as ACT-R,
>         SOAR and CHREST, and is inspired by studies of human memory
>         recall, starting with George Miller in 1956, and taken further
>         by a succession of researchers. Gobet et al. define a chunk as
>         “a collection of elements having strong associations with one
>         another, but weak associations with elements within other
>         chunks.” Cognitive Science uses computational models as the
>         basis for making quantitive descriptions of different aspects
>         of cognition including memory and reasoning. There are
>         similarities to Frames and Property Graphs.
>
>         Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
>         http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
>
>         W3C Data Activity Lead & W3C champion for the Web of things
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>  Virusvrij. www.avg.com 
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>