[FoRK] Q re: ConceptNet (also FluidDB)
sdw at lig.net
Thu Oct 22 02:21:54 PDT 2009
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2009, at 12:24 PM, Stephen Williams wrote:
>> I view a lot of the semantic technology as A) a better way to
>> organize information for straight business purposes and B) often the
>> best form of bottom-up feeder information that could feed into
>> knowledge and probabilistic graph reasoning systems.
> A (the?) big problem is that even if A) is true in theory it is not
> true in practice. The organization exposed to the user has little
> relation to the organization under the hood. That impedance mismatch
> is usually very expensive. Explicitly structured data typically
> matches common use cases pretty well, a cheap "80/20 rule" optimization.
There was a commercial database product with a very nice Java-based GUI
that was essentially an RDF-graph based database. It was not hard to
understand or use. Unfortunately, they took the wrong product path. I
had several conversations with the founder. He just deviate from his
particular viewpoint and he didn't know anything about RDF / semantic ideas.
Anyway, yes, that is true now, however I don't think it is necessarily
true. We just need the equivalent of a spreadsheet application to make
it accessible. I'm thinking about it, when I can...
>> I'm glad you now see a mapping / equivalence. I would really like to
>> focus on proving what my intuition tells me, but have several more
>> pressing concerns first. Someone will eventually map the equivalence
>> of NN with probabilistic relational graph reasoning (Bayesian /
>> Markov with imprecise reasoning, etc.) and both will be A) unified or
>> B) both be stronger as a result.
> A lot of work gets done that makes the assumption that classic NN
> models are inferior approximations of high-order Bayesian models. It
> may just be a conjecture that is commonly assumed, though it does
> appear to be obviously true upon non-rigorous inspection. Anyone can
> add weights to the edges and vertices of a graph, the real trick is
> deciding where to not put edges even when you have a nominal reason to.
> I've long wondered if there is a relationship between Braess' Paradox
> and pruning algorithms for graph-like computational models but am too
> busy/lazy to spend much time thinking about it.
Seems like a different thing to me... Although I wouldn't be surprised
if there is some analog.
More information about the FoRK