O Knoweldge Graph, Where Art Thou? by Matthew Hurst.
From the post:
The web search community, in recent months and years, has heard quite a bit about the ‘knowledge graph’. The basic concept is reasonably straightforward – instead of a graph of pages, we propose a graph of knowledge where the nodes are atoms of information of some form and the links are relationships between those statements. The knowledge graph concept has become established enough for it to be used as a point of comparison between Bing and Google.
….
Much of what we see out there in the form of knowledge returned for searches is really isolated pockets of related information (the date and place of brith of a person, for example). The really interesting things start happening when the graphs of information become unified across type, allowing – as suggested by this example – the user to traverse from a performer to a venue to all the performers at that venue, etc. Perhaps ‘knowledge engineer’ will become a popular resume-buzz word in the near future as ‘data scientest’ has become recently.
Read Matthew’s post for the details of the comparison.
+1! to going from graphs of pages to graphs of “atoms of information.”
I am less certain about “…graphs of information become unified across type….”
What I am missing is the reason to think that “type,” unlike any other subject, will have a uniform identification.
If we solve the problem of not requiring “type” to have a uniform identification, why not apply that to other subjects as well?
Without an express or implied requirement for uniform identification, all manner of “interesting things” will be happening in knowledge graphs.
(Note the plural, knowledge graphs, not knowledge graph.)