Re: What is a Knowledge Graph? CORRECTION

Regarding scale, the biggest KG I've see so far is claimed by Diffbot
(1+ trillion facts):
http://blog.diffbot.com/introducing-the-diffbot-knowledge-graph/

On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:24 AM Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@sti2.at> wrote:
>
> Hi Pat,
>
> thanks for these extremely interesting post. I would like to jump onto
> your summary:
>
> >>>
> >>> 5. The semantic nets of the 1970s were, almost univerally, /much/
> >>> more expressive than knowledge graphs or RDF, or any of the other
> >>> ‘graph’-like modern notations. They typically had ways of encoding
> >>> quantifier scopes, disjunction, negation and sometimes such things
> >>> as modal operators. The grandfather of them all, C.S.Peirce’s
> >>> ‘existential graphs’  had the full expressivity of first-order logic
> >>> in 1885 (implemented as ‘conceptual graphs’ by John Sowa about 90
> >>> years later http://www.jfsowa.com/cg/cgonto.htm). It has been
> >>> downhill from there.
> >>>
> Indeed, old work on KR was mostly around very expressive Tboxes (and
> Aboxes were just an uninteresting appendix where you put 2-3 facts to
> illustrate your approach). Given the expressivism of that Tboxes it was
> mostly work for the sand box of academic seminars. Turning this work
> from the" Kopf auf die Füsse" is actually the real contribution of the
> recent work on KGs. They come with bizarre large grown Aboxes and with
> extremely simple Tboxes. There may be two major reasons for this:
>
> 1) World view: It is very hard to think on useful rules that hold on a
> global scale. I saw trials in recent papers such as "parents and child
> hold same nationality" (does already no hold in my simple case), "wife
> and husband stay in the same city" (...). At University I learnt the
> rule married(a,b) and male(a) implies female(b), and even married(a,b)
> and married(a,c) implies equal(b,c) does not hold on an universal scale.
> Maybe in future married(a,b) implies human(b) may even be invalid. Who
> knows?
>
> 2) System view: A system with million of rules and trillions of facts
> will never scale in the foreseeable future of the 21st century. Not even
> during the building and knowledge curation phase.
>
> Therefore, we watch a new systems architecture evolving where extremely
> big (semantic) data lakes are accessed and consolidated by means that
> define a domain and task specific view on them. Kind of heterogeneous
> and distributed micro Tboxes (to make a reference to the idea of micro
> theories in CYC (*). This new view is arising over the last ten years
> based on excellent work of LOD academics and people in industry on
> in-house KGs and it is just in its beginning of releasing its full
> potential. You know it always takes a bit downhill when you leave the
> Ivory tower.
>
> Btw, I think you need at least multi-sets to even cover simple graphs.
>
> (*) with the difference that the KG is not structured by them.
>
>

Received on Sunday, 16 June 2019 08:34:36 UTC