Re: What is a Knowledge Graph? CORRECTION

Do you mean "ascribed"?
"Or take the point of view of Newell, 1982.Knowledge is **ascribed** to an agent
by an observer that applies the concept of (bounded) rationality to explain
[its] **the agent's** ability in achieving goals.
What about more than one observer and, or, subject?What about the observer who
is the subject of their own observations?
Anyway, the main issue here is that it is possible to abstract knowledge as
information and then extract knowledge from that information later. There are
times, parties and places (changing contexts) involved in this.
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 09:27, Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@sti2.at> wrote:
Or take the point of view of Newell, 1982. Knowledge is subscribed to an agent
by an observer that applies the concept of (bounded) rationality to explain its
ability in achieving goals. 


On 19.06.2019 09:28, Daniel Schwabe wrote:
Hi,


"information is knowledge in action”.


Actually, I think it’s the other way around: “Knowledge is information in action”. In other words, and simplifying a bit, any information that is used for an action (to achieve a goal) becomes knowledge, when coupled with the information about the action itself.


Daniel
---
Daniel Schwabe                      Dept. de Informatica, PUC-Rio
Tel:+55-21-3527 1500 r. 4356        R. M. de S. Vicente, 225
Fax: +55-21-3527 1530               Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22453-900, Brasil
http://www.inf.puc-rio.br/~dschwabe







On Jun 17, 2019, at 12:53  - 17/06/19, Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com> wrote:

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.



______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________


-- 
Dieter Fensel
Chair STI Innsbruck
University of Innsbruck, Austria
www.sti-innsbruck.at/
tel +43-664 3964684