Re: What is a Knowledge Graph? CORRECTION

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:17 PM Steffen Staab <staab@uni-koblenz.de> wrote:

>
>
> Am 19.06.2019 um 10:59 schrieb Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>:
>
> Thank you for confirming this
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:36 AM Steffen Staab <staab@uni-koblenz.de>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am 19.06.2019 um 09:28 schrieb Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br>:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> For the information science community (including the quoted Kuhlen),
>> information is the higher quality object.
>> For the knowledge management community, knowledge is the higher quality
>> object (leading to the cited „knowledge is information in action“).
>> Knowledge representation community tended to define knowledge as
>> justified true belief.
>>
>
> thank you for confirming this here Steffen. but it's also an
> interpretation that is now changing in the Knowledge representation
> community isn't it?
>
>
> Is it?
> Based on which observations would you say that it is changing in the KR
> community?
> I would not consider Linked Data to be a proper part of the KR community,
> though I do see the emphasis of deixis (using meaningful URIs)
> as the most fundamental development in logics-oriented KR of the last 20
> years
> (just my personal opinion). I do not see this being discussed much in KR
> (other than by van Harmelen and colleagues) and
> they don’t publish this in a KR conference (to my limited knowledge).
>

leads me to the question: Do you consider "Knowledge Graph" being a proper
part of the KR community?



>
>
> Or do you do expect it to just power steadily on and leave the likes of
> Sowa in the dust?
>
>
> What is the reference of „it“. Above are three different definitions that
> hardly overlap.
> Wrt Sowa I would have imagined that he would have subscribed to the third
> one, but I might be wrong on this.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it
>> means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
>> ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many
>> different things.’
>> ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s
>> all.”
>> ;)
>>
>
> since I just missed the start of Wonderweb by a few month I was always
> wondering if the phrase "we're all a bit mad here" was a guiding principle
> for the project.  ;)
>
>
> :)
> Actually, it was solid research, but not revolutionary.
>
>
> Who came up with the name? I presume it has to be one of the British
> project participants?
>
>
> It was not me, but I do not recall who it was.
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
>
> ---
> Marco Neumann
> KONA
>
>
>

-- 


---
Marco Neumann
KONA