[FoRK] Q re: ConceptNet (also FluidDB)

Jeff Bone jbone at place.org
Wed Oct 21 11:00:32 PDT 2009

Re:  JAR's comments...

Yup to all, particularly the graph theoretical stuff.  Important to  
note (of course you realize this already, just noting "for the record)  
that rdf / semantic networks, your usual induction and inference  
engines, and so forth are all just specialized graph engines with some  
strict constraints on the meanings of nodes and edges and the  
algorithms which operate on them.  IMHO the innovation in ConceptNet  
is in having a higher-order / fuzzier semantics for the nodes and  
edges.  CN's concepts and relations operate at a level a lot closer to  
the fuzzy semantic / analogical reasoning of humans (and hence the  
real uses of natural language) than e.g. the stricter systems.

But at some level it's all graph theory, whether we're talking CN,  
rdf / cwm / SparQL / etc., Prolog-like systems, and so on.

Neural networks and other similar systems are something else entirely,  
though, and while there's a mapping here it's a bit elusive.   
Spreading activation in semantic networks with fuzzy, defeasible  
semantics seems like a pretty rich topic at present.


More information about the FoRK mailing list