Re: What is a Knowledge Graph? CORRECTION

but Pat that's already a useful delineation, during my time investigating
context-aware mobile computing I also came to the conclusion that it would
make sense to separate "context" that does have an altering effect on the
meaning of the content from one that doesn't. Earlier in this thread I took
the liberty to use the formula "contextual usage of knowledge makes it
information", Kuhlen actually uses the word "action" instead culminating in
the slogan: "information is knowledge in action". Pat before you disregard
this little info nugget here as just gobbledygook keep in mind that it
originates from social sciences and epistemology. I appreciate your own
observation with regards to the use of “context”, it certainly can be a
very mushed situation and participants in the discussion are not
necessarily trained or prepared to partake in a philosophical debate about
these aspects right away. But wasn't that always like that in AI research?
Conferences, workshops, research bodies had to drive participation and
increase range to be economically viable and socially relevant? It's no
surprise that the Semantic Web community seems to be particularly
vulnerable here due to its use of the word "semantic" (almost
intentionally) in its name and the lack of "consistent use of terminology".
Maybe best best to use "Knowledge Graph" here just as catchy AI marketing
slogan like the "Big Data" or "Smart Data" categories du jour to be
championed by respective market participants, it maybe neither or only
vaguely refer to knowledge or graphs.

PS: bad news especially when it comes to numbers I find it the greatest
source of misunderstandings since they are almost always unexpectedly, by
syntactical differences, used heavily use case dependent. BTW our social
security numbers may not be as unique as you might think.

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:22 AM Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

> The trouble with this kind of claim is that it can mean almost anything.
> The word “context” is virtually meaningless: anything can be a “context”.
> I have attended at least two research seminars, each lasting several days,
> on the topic of ‘contextual reasoning’ where EVERY speaker was referring to
> a different notion of “context”. Contexts ranged from things lasting a few
> milliseconds to things lasting millennia; some contexts were linguistic,
> some conversational, some semantic, some social, some physical. And yet
> every speaker simply talked about ‘contexts’ as though they were all
> discussing a single topic. “Context” just means, roughly: whatever
> influences meanings that I havn’t got included in my theory of meaning (or:
> you havn’t got in your theory of meaning) yet. (See
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7443/6841406f5fca382e20b15424cf2914a7b797.pdf
>  and https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-44958-2_14 for more
> discussion.)
>
> The example given doesn’t seem to involve contexts, however. Something can
> be both a city and a seat of government (and the capital of a country, and
> the setting of a photograph, and the topic of a song, etc..) all at the
> same time, since these descriptions are mutually consistent. The meaning of
> “Paris” does not change when it is used in all these descriptions. So no
> contexts are needed for that. But if we ask how large London is, or what is
> its population, then we need to know whether the name refers to the City of
> London, or the London post town, or Greater London, or the London
> Metropolitan Region, etc.. and some kind of context mechanism might be a
> way to disambiguate. But even here, I am rather cynical, having seen
> proposals for such mechanisms made, indeed having made some of them myself,
> and then almost univerally ignored. If contexts are really this important,
> why does nobody ever want to actually use them?
>
> Pat
>
> PS. There are "absolute concepts", by the way, whose meaning is completely
> specified and does not change with any context. Numbers, dates and times
> (with time zone), latitude and longitude, GPS locations, and even quite a
> few ordinary identifying descriptions, such as "the US citizen with SS
> number 567-99-1952”.
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2019, at 11:13 PM, Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <
> Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:
>
> Ø  I have no clear idea what ‘concepts’ are, but if the concept of, say,
> Paris is anything other than a city, then a node with the label “Paris”,
> intended to name the capital of France, does NOT represent a concept.
>
> My hunch is that it is *always* contextual.
>
> pop:Paris a pop:City .
> govt:Paris a govt:SeatOfGovernment .
>
> There are no absolute concepts.
>
> *From:* Bradwell (US), Prachant [mailto:prachant.bradwell@boeing.com
> <prachant.bradwell@boeing.com>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, 16 June, 2019 04:06
> *To:* semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
> *Cc:* Chris Harding <chris@lacibus.net>; Paola Di Maio <
> paoladimaio10@gmail.com>; xyzscy <1047571207@qq.com>; Patrick J Hayes <
> phayes@ihmc.us>
> *Subject:* Re: What is a Knowledge Graph? CORRECTION
>
> Through this conversation, it seems to me that the term “graph” is a
> confusion point. Might there be a better term to explain this to the
> layman?
>
> It is entirely possible that I need a history lesson on this too :)
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2019, at 11:02 AM, Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>
> Chris,a few remarks.
>
> 1. Although obviously a node-edge-node is a triple, so any (directed,
> labeled) graph can be treated as a set of triples, not all sets of triples
> can be drawn as a graphical diagram. RDF graphs (= sets of RF triples, by
> definition) for example can have the same label used as both a node and arc
> label, possibly even in the same triple. I would suggest treating the word
> “graph” here as a handy way to describe triple-sets and leave it at that.
>
> 2. Being ’thought of as’ something can hardly be used as a definition. I
> can think of a pile of grey rags as an elephant, but that doesnt make it
> actually be anything.
>
> 3. To speak of ‘concepts' and 'nodes representing' them is getting very
> blurry indeed with semantics, to the point where one loses meaning
> altogether. Most nodes in most K. graphs do what names in Krep notations
> usually do: they /denote/ /things/ (‘entities’ if you like). After working
> in the semantcs area for most of my career, I have no clear idea what
> ‘concepts’ are, but if the concept of, say, Paris is anything other than a
> city, then a node with the label “Paris”, intended to name the capital of
> France, does NOT represent a concept.
>
> 4. The notion of higher-dimensional triple is new. (Did you mean
> ‘higher-order’?) And can you illustrate this technique of real-valued
> vectors to encode them?
>
> 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.
>
> Pat Hayes
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2019, at 1:31 PM, Chris Harding <chris@lacibus.net> wrote:
>
> Hi, Paola -
>
> Interesting question! I think that graphs relate particularly to triples
> because node-edge-node can be represented as a triple, so a collection of
> triples describes a graph.
>
> So "a collection of triples to which someone attaches meaning" doesn't
> quite capture it. Maybe "a collection of triples to which someone attaches
> meaning and which is thought of as a graph, with the nodes representing
> concepts and the edges representing meaningful connections between them"
> would come closer?
>
> Higher-dimension tuples can come in as embedded vectors - tuples of real
> numbers that cam be associated with nodes or edges of the knowledge graph
> to convey attribute values. There appear to be various techniques for
> producing these, including AI.I think it is these techniques that take us
> beyond "the good old semantic nets of the 70ies" - although scale is
> important too.
>
> Paola Di Maio wrote:
>
> Chris
> KG can also be any n-tuple, isnt it?
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:21 PM Chris Harding <chris@lacibus.net> wrote:
>
> I should have said that it is a collection of triples to which someone
> attaches meaning. The triples might or might not be in a triple store.
>
> Chris Harding wrote:
>
> What is a knowledge graph?
>
> I looked it up in Wikipedia, and the definition seemed to be "What Google
> does". Reading a bit more widely, I came to the conclusion that it is a
> triple store to which someone attaches meaning. (Of course, this is most,
> if not all, triple stores.) What is interesting is the impressive amount of
> theory and practice, associated with the "knowledge graph" label, for using
> AI and other techniques to obtain transformations or measurements of the
> triple stores that add to the meaning that people attach to them.
>
> I found these articles helpful:
> http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2322/dsi4-6.pdf
>
> https://towardsdatascience.com/neural-network-embeddings-explained-4d028e6f0526
> https://content.iospress.com/articles/data-science/ds007
>
> xyzscy wrote:
>
> Thank you for your response. I think the KG term is spread by GOOGLE,
> while I don’t how google implement it.  I used to think the semantic
> network  is the key technology of KG,but google has never statement that.
>
> 在 2019年6月13日，下午2:46，Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> Thank you for asking this,
>
> I  ll leave the experts to reply to scalability and other questions
>
> In general, much depends on the language one uses, which in turn
> depends on the domain (which planet you come from)
>
> When I first studied knowledge engineering, the expression knowledge graph
> was not in use at all. I was doing an MSc and studied the body of knowledge
> from ESPRIT project (some folks on this list worked on it)
>
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/193e/b66909b0c87d5dbcdbd6b20d78ed93fc95a7.pdf
>
>
>  I d be curious to learn when such term knowledge graph came in use and
> who coined it
>
> I then heard it in relation to the SW and this list, and always tried to
> figure out what exactly
> a KG is (in relation the wider Knowledge Representation domain I was
> studying)
>
> Knowledge graphs are a type of knowledge representation, and they can be
> visualized
> graphically, or represented using algebra (again, depends on what planet
> you are on)
> Engineers tend to use diagrams, others tend to use algebra
>
> But more importantly, is that they enable machine readability querying and
> computational manipulation of complex (combined) data sets, assuming
> knowledge is some kind of data in context, as some say.
> I dont use the term knowledge graph much either.  Let's see if the KG
> folks can offer more info
>
> PDM
> Knowledge Graph Representation
> *Knowledge graphs* provide a unified format for representing *knowledge* about
> relationships between entities. A *knowledge graph* is a collection of
> triples, with each triple (h,t,r) denoting the fact that relation r exists
> between head entity h and tail en- tity t.
> http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2322/dsi4-6.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 1:40 PM 我<1047571207@qq.com> wrote:
>
> Dear all:
>
> When I first touch knowledge graph, I'm very confused. Different from the
> other AI theory,  it is not an pattern recognization algorithm which will
> give some "output" given some "input"(such as classify algorithms) ,but a
> program language(such as owl,rdf) and database(such as neo4j) instead. So
> in my opinion, knowledge graph is more like a problem of engineering than
> mathematic theory.
>
> Then I realized that different from the pattern recognization algorithm,
> the knowledge graph is created aimed at making the computes all over the
> world to  communicate with each other with a common language, and I have
> a question: Is scalability the key property of knowledge graph?
>
> There are many knowledge vaults edited by different language(such as
> owl,rdf ),but is it always hard to merge them and there is not a standard
> knowledge vault  on which  we can do advanced  development. So is it
> necessary to open a scalable  and standard knowledge vault so that everyone
> can keep extended it and make it more perfect just like linux kernel or
> wiki pedia? What kind of knowledge should be contained in the standard
> knowledge vault so that it can be universal?  I imagine that the standard
> knowledge vault is an originator, and all of the other application copy
> the originator, then all of the other application can communicate under the
> same common sense, for example when a application decelerate ''night", all
> of the other application will know it's dark.
>
> As I know, the knowlege graph is implement as a query service, but is it
> possible to implement it  as a program language,just like c++,java? In this
> way ,the compute can directly know nature language, and human can
> communicate with compute with nature language, also a compute
> can communicate with another compute with nature language.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Chris
> ++++
>
> Chief Executive, Lacibus <https://lacibus.net/> Ltd
> chris@lacibus.net
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Chris
> ++++
>
> Chief Executive, Lacibus <https://lacibus.net/> Ltd
> chris@lacibus.net
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Chris
> ++++
>
> Chief Executive, Lacibus <https://lacibus.net/> Ltd
> chris@lacibus.net
>
>
>

-- 


---
Marco Neumann
KONA