Talk:Knowledge Graph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Title[edit]

I have reverted a bold move to the title Google Knowledge Graph. The formal title of this feature seems to be just Knowledge Graph and this title seems clear and simple enough for our purposes. For an example of a mainstream source which follows this usage, see Washington Post. Andrew Davidson (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Random opinion here, it seems crazy to allow general purpose terms to be claimed by specific implementations/products. (I found another irritating case, 'bitplane' a company name, requiring annoying disambiguation when you want to link to info about certain bitmap formats. At the very least 'knowledge graph' should be a generic disambiguation page pointing to here, then in future people accidentally linking this will know Fmadd (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree, I would fully support a move back to Google Knowledge Graph. Crumpled Fire (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Barring another topic arising of that name needing an article space and thus disambiguation, it looks to me like this is the most appropriate place to keep it, as the most common term for it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
IMO.. not even Google should be able to get away with claiming common descriptive terms as brand names IMO. there were plenty of tools for doing this sort of thing and it's a general purpose term, it just happens to be a technical term that wasn't previously in mainstream use.what about microsoft "Paint". you want every reference to 'Paint' to have to explicitely specify that it's not the microsoft tool. Apple's spreadsheet is called "Numbers". should we change the wikipedia article to be about apple's spreadsheet and rely on a disambiguation for that...and so on. other products have knowledge graph components, as will future products Fmadd (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree title is confusing. Google Scholar reports 1130 papers on "Knowledge Graph" prior to 2011. [1] Michaelmalak (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, the general purpose term "Knowledge Graph" is pretty much a synonym for semantic network, which already has an article. I suggest the following: 1) Knowledge Graph redirect to that article, 2) This article be renamed to Google Knowledge Graph, and 3) Google Knowledge Graph be added as another example to the Semantic Network article. As an alternative -- much less preferred by me -- an "Other uses of" template can be added to this article that points to the Semantic Network article. The concept of semantic networks goes back to the 1950s, and the synonymous term Knowledge Graph goes back to at least the 1970s. An article titled Knowledge Graph devoted to a specific 2012 implementation by a specific company of a concept that has been researched and implemented continuously for 60 years -- again, 1130 articles in Google Scholar refer to non-Google uses of the term "Knowledge Graph" -- violates the MOS principle of article title precision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Precision "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." Michaelmalak (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
maybe a compromise would be to make 'Knowledge Graph' itself a disambiguation page (->semantic network or google knowledge graph) then that will clean up any existing erroneous links (and appease the opposing views). But I would personally be happy to see it as a straight redirect— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmadd (talkcontribs)
I would fully support a straight redirect to Semantic network with a hatnote saying — "Knowledge Graph" redirects here. For the Google product, see Google Knowledge Graph.. — Crumpled Fire contribs 22:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
as I understand the wikipedia platform, it has a handy feature that warns you about links to disambiguation pages: this means during a transition, the community can fix up any links that become 'semantically' wrong after the change . Thats why a disambig page might be useful; if you put a note on 'semantic network'... you rely on humans to click through and find its wrong , manually. Leveraging the link structure between pages to do work helps IMO. Fmadd (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Although that may be the case, technicalities should not be relevant in deciding these matters. That being said, I'd support a disambig page if it was what others preferred. My primary choice is the redirect, secondary is the disambig, and lastly the status quo. — Crumpled Fire contribs 22:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
IMO I describe practicalities for transition, rather than technicalities; the issue is the accuracy of the 'state' of information in wikipedia at any one time. Perhaps a tool could be written (or already exists) that can deal with such links. Nonetheless leaving it a disambig is sensitive to the practicality that 'laymen' are being introduced to the term knowledge graph by seeing it in google first (as unjust as that is) Fmadd (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
May I note that this as a product name is Title Case, and thus we can have both Knowledge Graph for this page and Knowledge graph for the generic term, with hatnotes on both? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
interesting observation and potential solution, however I think relying on capitalisation for radically different meaning is rather error prone/hazardous. and remember the potential value here for AI, it's not just wether a human can tell.. in the not too distant future we'll be making natural language queries etc based on this dataset (the better the links are, the sooner) Fmadd (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Without weighing on whether to use "Google Knowledge Graph" or "Knowledge Graph" (full disclosure, I work on it at Google), I just wanted to point out that I'd like to see at least a few good sources for the claim that the terms "knowledge graph" and "semantic network" are synonymous. Semantic networks are a rather broad term in knowledge representation, whereas the term knowledge graph today seems mostly used for RDF-based graphs. I have to admit that I personally have only a rather vague understanding of what a semantic network really is (and our own article on that is rather bad), but doing research on Semantic Web technologies and RDF for more than a decade, I remember that it was always distinguished from the term semantic network. A simple redirect from knowledge graph to semantic network would sound wrong to me. I would personally prefer a disambiguation over a redirect, which would allow for more flexibility. But, as said, I am obviously a potentially biased voice here, and just wanted to point this out. --denny vrandečić (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that Google Knowledge Graph is RDF? My assumption is that it is not. And after researching just now, it seems that 20 years ago, say, you're right -- there was a sharp distinction between semantic networks and knowledge graphs ([2] "In conceptual graph theory and in semantic network theory the number of relation types is not limited. Whenever some type of relation is needed, this relation will be added. In knowledge graph theory, the types of relation are limited in number, only the eight relations and four frames should be enough to express all semantics. This is the major difference between the two theories.") but in recent years this distinction seems to have gone away ([3] "By knowledge graph we refer to any graph used to represent knowledge about concepts and relations between them. A knowledge graph can be seen as a property graph, a graph whose nodes and edges have properties. Also, knowledge graphs are a superset of multigraphs because they can contain multiple edges between the same pair of nodes.") A good summary of the vagueness and drift of the term is [4]. Perhaps there should be a "Knowledge Graph" section added to the Semantic Network article, since formerly knowledge graphs were a subset of semantic networks and now there is less distinction. Having a separate article for Knowledge Graph (that is, not specific to Google) would require a lot of duplication from the Semantic Network article. Disclosure: I am a developer on an Oracle cloud product that advertises its use of a knowledge graph. Michaelmalak (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I just now (after some further research) added a paragraph to Semantic network#History about the evolution of the term knowledge graph. If and when there is ever a separate article for Knowledge Graph (in the generic sense), that paragraph can be moved there. But as I stated above, I think because knowledge graphs are a subset of semantic networks (and now nearly synonymous with them) that treating knowledge graphs on the semantic networks article makes the most sense. Now there can be more confidence about either redirecting or disambiguating Knowledge Graph over to the article on Semantic Networks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak (talkcontribs) 20:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Before we rush to reassign this article, we should reflect on the fact that this article has existed for years, is linked to in a fair number of pages (some through Template:Computable_knowledge, but not all), and that so far the only effort to create an article for the other use of the term seems to be in reaction to the existence of this page. As such, it may well be that this is the topic that is of more current interest, and even if we disallowed separation based purely on capitalization, this page may actually be the reasonable primary at the moment. Additionally, if we are to rename it, we should look into whether the more proper name is "Google Knowledge Graph", or "Knowledge Graph (Google product)". --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree based on the 2012 hockey stick. [5] I made the WP:BOLD move to spell out the distinction in the Knowledge Graph hat note. I also changed the Knowledge Engine disambiguation page point to Semantic network#History for "Knowledge graph" (lowercase g). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak (talkcontribs) 21:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
"Before we rush to reassign this article, we should reflect on the fact that this article has existed for years," - Thats why I would suggest making this page a disambiguation. Anywhere that links to it gets the error, then can redirect to 'semantic network' or 'google knowledge graph' appropriately.Fmadd (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Good hockey stick reference, Michaelmalak! That gives some pretty strong suggestion that this Google product is indeed the primary topic at this time. A disambiguation page seems fairly inappropriate when there are only two items and one of them is a clear primary; a hatnote carries things just fine. When there's a primary topic, going to the page will usually get you to the right place and in the minority of cases, the right page is only one click away; with a disambiguation page, going to the page will never get you to the right place, the right place is always one click away. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC) Added: Oh, and in general, we don't rely on the community to fix links we break when we make a move; it's considered appropriate for the person doing the move to correct the links. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
have you seen the context above - there's tonnes of prior research using the term 'knowledge graph' in academia. It's only in *public* use that people associate it with google. Wikipedia surely should be about a neutral POV. Wikipedia is also a work in progress. Future articles may document other research. I have placed a link to this on my own page and 'google knowledge graph' is NOT what I wanted. Fmadd (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen the context above... but when the question comes to "when people come to Wikipedia to find out about a 'Knowledge Graph', what are they seeking information on?", I consider online searches to be a far better indicator than what's been written up in academia. (Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.") Future developments may change things, yes, but that's always the case when it comes to how disambiguation falls. The minor local politician today may be the President in twenty years. "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
"a Knowledge Graph is ..... examples of use in commercial products: Google Knowledge Graph, Wolfram Alpha, ..." Just because laymen think google knowledge graph is the only one, it shouldn't stop Wikipedia from educating people about the full use of the term first and foremost. Otherwise companies can get away with claiming general terms (you want anyone looking for "Paint" to get the microsoft product first?)Fmadd (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I would want users to get MS Paint first if that was most likely to be the topic they were looking for, yes. I have zero problem that Windows takes people to the Microsoft product, rather than to sheet glass portals or the general concept of windows in computer graphic displays. We should be taking them to the topic they actually want, rather than the topic you want them to want. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
wikipedia is here to educate IMO. a compromise might be to mention 'google knowledge graph' early in the text. "a Knowledge Graph is a ..blah blah.. , as found in Wolfram Alpha or Google Knowledge Graph." Fmadd (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Which infobox should this article use?[edit]

I want to add an infobox, but which infobox is appropriate?--Qiyue2001 (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Image request[edit]

I would like to request an image example of Knowledge Graph, for instance of Marie Curie, to show what it is in a very simple way. I cannot make an english version myself, as my Google just shows my local non-english version. TGCP (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I can do that.However is it legal? Am I allowed to upload a screenshot of google's proprietary software? LasPo rocks (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Look how this screenshot of GoogleImageSearch is licensed (see the trademark disclaimer)
Interesting question :-) and somewhat ironic, given that google Knowledge Graph (KG) is largely scraped off Wikipedia... Let's check, google "da vinci":
  • images are the most obvious issue: copyright. But images of da vinci should be public domain by now. They should be credited in the commons-file information page if they are in the screenshot. All images, the da vinci portraits on top, and below the "Artwork" and "People also search for (other portraits)". Can be done.
  • text in the KG should be no problem, if it is a Wikipedia article intro text (but again, give credit in the file description)
  • data like "Born: April 15, 1452, Vinci, Italy / Died: May 2, 1519, Amboise, France / Full name:..." is free (and taken from google freebase, which scraped from Wikipedia), same for small captions below images ("Mona Lisa 1517")
  • search snippets at the left side (outside KG): very short snippets (words!) should be OK, but images there are a problem (copyright). Therefor crop/cut the screenshot off on the left side (offtopic anyway). Also crop the top, no browser.
Should be OK like that. Don't google Tom Cruise! ;-P --Atlasowa (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Section "Conversational search," — seems POV, OT & bloated.[edit]

Perhaps not strictly Off Topic, but tangential, thus bloated. (The topic is Knowledge Graphs, not search engines (aspects) in general.) Like Amit Singhal's article, that section seems like part of his resume or fan club.

I think it should be eliminated, but I'll not be so bold, and I'll just shorten it.
--71.137.156.36 (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Curie[edit]

I have removed the Knowledge Graph image that featured a living person being used do illustrate something unrelated to him without his permission (that was why I used my own KG result at first, as I implicitly gave permission) with a Knowledge Graph of a no-longer-living person, one that for some reason had been requested above. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

History[edit]

I've removed a newly-added history section, because while it did have a source relating to the term "knowledge graph", there was nothing shown linking it to the Google Knowledge Graph, and the thing being described did not seem to accord with the Google product; it looked like coincidental use of the same term. However, if someone has a reliable source linking them, that would be good to see. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

WaPo article about "unsourced" Google knowledge panels[edit]

I recently added a section to this article about "knowledge panels", based largely on a recent report in the Washington Post (WaPo). The WaPo report says that these knowledge panels omit not just what we here at Wikipedia consider to be valid sources, but even omit Wikipedia itself as a source. I don't think the latter critical point would be clear unless we explicitly say so in this Wikipedia article, but this clarification has been reverted. There is no dispute that the cited source repeatedly mentions Wikipedia, and that the cited source uses the word "unsourced" to mean that not even Wikipedia is used as a source. So why not say so in this article? Here's the WaPo cite:

Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That's like saying that if the Post said that someone has no food, we should add "not even pizza" to it. No source means no source. And at the point where they are pointing to the lack of source, they are not emphasizing Wikipedia, so we do not need to add some POV to their statement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm kind of puzzled by what "POV" you think would be added here, other than the POV that we should write clearly. If WaPo wrote an article saying that a person was not given food, and it's clear from the context that WaPo meant "food" to include liquid as well as solid nourishment, then there would be absolutely nothing wrong with us saying that's what WaPo meant by "food". Same here. Do you dispute that WaPo meant "unsourced" to mean unsourced even to Wikipedia? If a Wikipedia article cited only Wikipedia itself, then it would be considered unsourced by many people, but that's not how WaPo is using the term "unsourced".Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
You're treating Wikipedia as a special case when it is not. Wikipedia-citing-Wikipedia-means-its-unsourced is not a special thing about Wikipedia; if Donald J. Trump says "Donald J. Trump says Hillary is lying", that is also unsourced. If the Encyclopedia Britanica or the Washington Post cite themselves, that is also unsourced, but if Wikipedia cites Trump or Trump cites Wikipedia, that is sourced. As we're talking about Google citing something, Wikipedia is not a special case, and and it makes no more sense to say "not even Wikipedia" than to say "not even Boy's Life, or the Windows '98 Manual, or Joe's Hungry Hungry Hippo Fanblog". You're putting in the POV that Wikipedia is a special case, and a diminutive one to boot, as though Wikipedia is the least possible thing one can use as a source - while there are certainly better things that one can use as a source, there are also worse. (It doesn't help matters that the WaPo is describing panels as "sourced" when only portions of the information in that panel is sourced.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the reply, and you make a good and interesting point. However, please note that the pertinent sentence in this Wikipedia article specifically gives Betty White as an example, and the cited source does specifically discuss Wikipedia in connection with the Betty White knowledge panels: "The one on the left is unsourced; the one on the right is sourced to Wikipedia". So it's not as though I've picked Wikipedia out of thin air, or out of context, nor have I given any misinformation about what the cited source means by "unsourced". So I think your argument boils down to redundancy and superfluosness regarding the phrase "meaning that not even Wikipedia is cited". You say that when Wikipedia cites itself, then of course that's unsourced because whenever someone cites himself it's unsourced. But there's a difference between a Wikipedia article citing itself, and a Wikipedia article citing another Wikipedia article, just like there's a difference between Donald Trump citing himself and Donald Trump citing his sister, and likewise there's a difference between Google citing an unreliable website and Google citing a reliable source. Even if it's arguably redundant, the phrase "meaning that not even Wikipedia is cited" is short and accurate and reliably sourced, so I hope we can keep it, but I won't try to revert or rephrase anymore. It seems like a decent compromise, but it's up to youAnythingyouwant (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but the Wapo article does not treat Wikipedia as a special form of sourcing. It doesn't say "it's sourced, albeit to Wikipedia", nor "it's 'sourced,' if you can consider Wikipedia a source." The treatment of Wikipedia as though it's a possible exception isn't called for, and I will remove it, but I will leave the quote you added to the reference and its reference to Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for leaving the quote in the footnote. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk)}
Just for the record, I would like to note that the word "unsourced" is sometimes defined as "using information that is not reliable". That's why I supported clarifying what WaPo meant by the word; they did not mean "using information that is not reliable".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

KG comparison[edit]

Knowledge Graph Refinement: A Survey of Approaches and Evaluation Methods Heiko Paulheim, Semantic Web 0 (2016) 1–0. ISSN 1570-0844

  • Abstract: "In the recent years, different Web knowledge graphs, both free and commercial, have been created. While Google coined the term “Knowledge Graph” in 2012, there are also a few openly available knowledge graphs, with DBpedia, YAGO, and Freebase being among the most prominent ones. Those graphs are often constructed from semi-structured knowledge, such as Wikipedia, or harvested from the web with a combination of statistical and linguistic methods. ..."
Table 1: Overview of popular knowledge graphs.[6]
Name Instances Facts Types Relations
DBpedia (English) 4,806,150 176,043,129 735 2,813
YAGO 4,595,906 25,946,870 488,469 77
Freebase 49,947,845 3,041,722,635 26,507 37,781
Wikidata 15,602,060 65,993,797 23,157 1,673
NELL 2,006,896 432,845 285 425
OpenCyc 118,499 2,413,894 45,153 18,526
Google’s Knowledge Graph 570,000,000 18,000,000,000 1,500 35,000
Google’s Knowledge Vault 45,000,000 271,000,000 1,100 4,469
Yahoo! Knowledge Graph 3,443,743 1,391,054,990 250 800

--Atlasowa (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


Requested move 20 March 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved I feel the need to explain since there is only one bolded !vote. The rest of the contributors here reached a rough consensus that 1) the article the draft that was not officially included in the RM, but was the reason for it, should not be moved to the mainspace, and not to the generic title. 2) that Google's implementation of the concept was the primary topic in modern parlance. In line with Wikipedia policy on naming, the page is not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


Knowledge GraphKnowledge Graph (Google implementation) – This article is only about the Google implementation of knowledge graphs, that's why it should be renamed. Wikipedia is there to eduacate people, so an article with the title "Knowledge Graph" should be about this general term and not about a specific implementation of it. Furthermore there are tonnes of prior research using the therm "knowledge graph" in academia. ERusz (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

See the discussion above under the header "Title". While there are some strong points made, largely it came down to:
  • We only put the parenthetical after the title when we need to disambiguate between Wikipedia pages. There is currently no other "knowledge graph" page to disambiguate it from.
  • Even were there to be another page, there is reason to believe that the Google product with that name is what most people are looking for when they search for that term, and thus under our guidelines it should be the page without the parenthetical.
--Nat Gertler (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I wrote a draft with the title "Knowledge graph" which is about the general term (hasn't been reviewed yet), that's why I made the suggestion to move this page. As I read the discussion above I had the feeling that a disambiguition page is preferred, which is another reason why I suggested moving this page.ERusz (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I've taken a look at Draft:Knowledge graph, and it convinced me further that this article should stay where it is. For one thing, your article, at least as it stands, wouldn't seem to fit properly into Wikipedia because it's a discussion of a term rather than a thing that the term represents; it indicates that there are varying definitions for the term describing different things. As such, it runs up against the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Even setting that aside, the sources you use discuss the fact that it's the Google use of the term that has made the term much more popular, which suggests that the Google version should be the primary term.
I will note that knowledge graph, no capitals, has its own page... although at the moment, that page is just a redirect. I would certainly not be adverse to the Title Case version of it being the Google version, and the lower case (or Sentence case, Wikipedia does not distinguish) be a more generic take. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I disagree with the premise of this move. There isn't some sort of "knowledge graphs in general" concept that Google happened to make a single implementation of (and agree with the above that the Draft article isn't really suited for Wikipedia). This is a particular service that Google made and is unique to it. It'd be like moving AngularJS to Angular (Google implementation) because React is a similar framework to Angular. Well, sure, but they're just the names of two separate products. SnowFire (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Even though I acquiesced to the original move request last year (putting me pretty much on your side), what you stated above is factually incorrect. "knowledge graph" technology dates back to the 1980s as described and cited at Semantic network#History. Google brazenly co-opted this term and made it into their product name Knowledge Graph. It's analogous to Microsoft co-opting the pre-existing term "windows" and naming their product "Windows". And, continuing the analogy, just as "Windows" in Wikipedia takes you to the article on Microsoft Windows, "Knowledge Graph" -- to be consistent -- should take you to the article on Google's Knowledge Graph. This is wrong from the perspective of history and from the perspective of giving academic credit, but Wikipedia, for better or for worse, goes by present-day popular parlance rather than historical record or academic usage. Michaelmalak (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Were those two words used next to each other before? Yes. The same would be true of many, many other products. Was Google's KG a simple implementation of a pre-existing concept, akin to a company producing brooms for sale merely called "Broom"? There I'd disagree. Sure, CS professors in the 1980s were exploring concepts that would eventually become "knowledge graph", but Google actually built it, and Google's implementation was hardly a simple implementation of instructions from academics in the 80s (barring the ones that Google itself hired, of course). And even then, I'm not sure it'd matter. For an analogous situation, think of various near-future concepts and devices that may or may not come to pass. Suppose someone actually builds one (say, a space elevator or the like), and calls it just the name of the concept. I'm not sure the musings of people 20-30 years earlier (aka us right now) are the "real" topic here; I think the actual implementation is what matters. SnowFire (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

History (2)[edit]

Possibly that part of the current history section would best belong in a more general article on the subject, unrelated to Google, and/or the section could also point to such other article just under its header (via a related/main article link). —PaleoNeonate – 11:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I moved the section from the history here, mostly because I have trouble understanding it. I am also rather sure that the research being mentioned here did not directly influence Google's Knowledge Graph, but I leave it here for discussion. It would be good if the paragraph could actually also speak about the content, and not only refer to publication dates. For example, what is a Semantic Link Network, what is a self-organised semantic networking approach to render knowledge? What is the ADF? Etc. As it is now it is mostly reference dropping to mostly one specific author:

Before Knowledge Graph and Linked Data, the Semantic Link Network had been systematically studied for creating a self-organised semantic networking approach to render knowledge. The systematic theory and model was published in 2004 [1], and then updated in 2012. [2] This research direction can trace to the definition of the rules for inheritance in 1998 [3] and the Active Document Framework ADF in 2003[4]. Since 2003, it has been developed toward a self-organised semantic networking method [5], [6]. This work is a systematic innovation at the age of the World Wide Web and global social networking. Its purpose and scope are different from that of the semantic net [7]. The rules for reasoning and evolution and automatic discovery of implicit links play an important role in the Semantic Link Network[8][9]. In recent years, it has been developed to support Cyber-Physical-Social Intelligence.[10] It has been used in many applications, including the general summarisation method. [11]

References

  1. ^ H. Zhuge, The Knowledge Grid, World Scientific Publishing Co. 2004
  2. ^ H. Zhuge, The Knowledge Grid: Toward Cyber-Physical Society, World Scientific Publishing Co. 2012
  3. ^ H. Zhuge, Inheritance rules for flexible model retrieval. Decision Support Systems 22(4)(1998)379-390
  4. ^ H. Zhuge, Active e-document framework ADF: model and tool. Information & Management 41(1): 87-97 (2003)
  5. ^ H.Zhuge and L.Zheng, Ranking Semantic-linked Network, WWW 2003.
  6. ^ H. Zhuge, A novel heterogeneous data integration approach for p2p semantic link network. WWW Conference 2004: 334-335
  7. ^ H.Zhuge, The Semantic Link Network, in The Knowledge Grid: Toward Cyber-Physical Society, World Scientific Publishing Co. 2012.
  8. ^ H. Zhuge, L. Zheng, N. Zhang and X. Li, An automatic semantic relationships discovery approach. WWW 2004: 278-279.
  9. ^ H. Zhuge, Communities and Emerging Semantics in Semantic Link Network: Discovery and Learning, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 21(6)(2009)785-799.
  10. ^ H.Zhuge, Semantic linking through spaces for cyber-physical-socio intelligence: A methodology, Artificial Intelligence, 175(2011)988-1019.
  11. ^ H. Zhuge, Multi-Dimensional Summarization in Cyber-Physical Society, Morgan Kaufmann, 2016.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Denny (talkcontribs) 15:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate:, @Shaded0:, someone else - the anonymous editor doesn't seem to be particularly cooperative and does not engage in discussion here. I already removed the paragraph twice, and since I am attached to the topic of the article, I could be regarded as biased. I would appreciate if you or someone else could do an unbiased review of the text and decide whether its inclusion in the current form is warranted. I am having trouble understanding the text itself, and also to see the relevant connection to the topic, but maybe I'm just being obtuse. Cheers, --denny vrandečić (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Denny: Done, take a look. I don't think the content adds anything much to this page and I removed it to be a wikilink to the appropriate page if the info indeed has merit of mention. Any more in depth discussion on the theory should belong on the appropriate page. Shaded0 (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --denny vrandečić (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)