Semantic Similarity Framework for Knowledge Graph

Introduction

Sematch is an integrated framework for the development, evaluation, and application of semantic similarity for Knowledge Graphs (KGs). It is easy to use Sematch to compute semantic similarity scores of concepts, words and entities. Sematch focuses on specific knowledge-based semantic similarity metrics that rely on structural knowledge in taxonomy (e.g. depth, path length, least common subsumer), and statistical information contents (corpus-IC and graph-IC). Knowledge-based approaches differ from their counterpart corpus-based approaches relying on co-occurrence (e.g. Pointwise Mutual Information) or distributional similarity (Latent Semantic Analysis, Word2Vec, GLOVE and etc). Knowledge-based approaches are usually used for structural KGs, while corpus-based approaches are normally applied in textual corpora.

In text analysis applications, a common pipeline is adopted in using semantic similarity from concept level, to word and sentence level. For example, word similarity is first computed based on similarity scores of WordNet concepts, and sentence similarity is computed by composing word similarity scores. Finally, document similarity could be computed by identifying important sentences, e.g. TextRank.

logo

KG based applications also meet similar pipeline in using semantic similarity, from concept similarity (e.g. http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/Actor109765278) to entity similarity (e.g. http://dbpedia.org/resource/Madrid). Furthermore, in computing document similarity, entities are extracted and document similarity is computed by composing entity similarity scores.

kg

In KGs, concepts usually denote ontology classes while entities refer to ontology instances. Moreover, those concepts are usually constructed into hierarchical taxonomies, such as DBpedia ontology class, thus quantifying concept similarity in KG relies on similar semantic information (e.g. path length, depth, least common subsumer, information content) and semantic similarity metrics (e.g. Path, Wu & Palmer,Li, Resnik, Lin, Jiang & Conrad and WPath). In consequence, Sematch provides an integrated framework to develop and evaluate semantic similarity metrics for concepts, words, entities and their applications.


Getting started: 20 minutes to Sematch

Install Sematch

You need to install scientific computing libraries numpy and scipy first. An example of installing them with pip is shown below.

pip install numpy scipy

Depending on different OS, you can use different ways to install them. After sucessful installation of numpy and scipy, you can install sematch with following commands.

pip install sematch
python -m sematch.download

Alternatively, you can use the development version to clone and install Sematch with setuptools. We recommend you to update your pip and setuptools.

git clone https://github.com/gsi-upm/sematch.git
cd sematch
python setup.py install

We also provide a Sematch-Demo Server. You can use it for experimenting with main functionalities or take it as an example for using Sematch to develop applications. Please check our Documentation for more details.

Computing Word Similarity

The core module of Sematch is measuring semantic similarity between concepts that are represented as concept taxonomies. Word similarity is computed based on the maximum semantic similarity of WordNet concepts. You can use Sematch to compute multi-lingual word similarity based on WordNet with various of semantic similarity metrics.

from sematch.semantic.similarity import WordNetSimilarity
wns = WordNetSimilarity()

# Computing English word similarity using Li method
wns.word_similarity('dog', 'cat', 'li') # 0.449327301063
# Computing Spanish word similarity using Lin method
wns.monol_word_similarity('perro', 'gato', 'spa', 'lin') #0.876800984373
# Computing Chinese word similarity using  Wu & Palmer method
wns.monol_word_similarity('狗', '猫', 'cmn', 'wup') # 0.857142857143
# Computing Spanish and English word similarity using Resnik method
wns.crossl_word_similarity('perro', 'cat', 'spa', 'eng', 'res') #7.91166650904
# Computing Spanish and Chinese word similarity using Jiang & Conrad method
wns.crossl_word_similarity('perro', '猫', 'spa', 'cmn', 'jcn') #0.31023804699
# Computing Chinese and English word similarity using WPath method
wns.crossl_word_similarity('狗', 'cat', 'cmn', 'eng', 'wpath')#0.593666388463

Computing semantic similarity of YAGO concepts.

from sematch.semantic.similarity import YagoTypeSimilarity
sim = YagoTypeSimilarity()

#Measuring YAGO concept similarity through WordNet taxonomy and corpus based information content
sim.yago_similarity('http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/Dancer109989502','http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/Actor109765278', 'wpath') #0.642
sim.yago_similarity('http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/Dancer109989502','http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/Singer110599806', 'wpath') #0.544
#Measuring YAGO concept similarity based on graph-based IC
sim.yago_similarity('http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/Dancer109989502','http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/Actor109765278', 'wpath_graph') #0.423
sim.yago_similarity('http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/Dancer109989502','http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/Singer110599806', 'wpath_graph') #0.328

Computing semantic similarity of DBpedia concepts.

from sematch.semantic.graph import DBpediaDataTransform, Taxonomy
from sematch.semantic.similarity import ConceptSimilarity
concept = ConceptSimilarity(Taxonomy(DBpediaDataTransform()),'models/dbpedia_type_ic.txt')
concept.name2concept('actor')
concept.similarity('http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Actor','http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Film', 'path')
concept.similarity('http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Actor','http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Film', 'wup')
concept.similarity('http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Actor','http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Film', 'li')
concept.similarity('http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Actor','http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Film', 'res')
concept.similarity('http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Actor','http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Film', 'lin')
concept.similarity('http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Actor','http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Film', 'jcn')
concept.similarity('http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Actor','http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Film', 'wpath')

Computing semantic similarity of DBpedia entities.

from sematch.semantic.similarity import EntitySimilarity
sim = EntitySimilarity()
sim.similarity('http://dbpedia.org/resource/Madrid','http://dbpedia.org/resource/Barcelona') #0.409923677282
sim.similarity('http://dbpedia.org/resource/Apple_Inc.','http://dbpedia.org/resource/Steve_Jobs')#0.0904545454545
sim.relatedness('http://dbpedia.org/resource/Madrid','http://dbpedia.org/resource/Barcelona')#0.457984139871
sim.relatedness('http://dbpedia.org/resource/Apple_Inc.','http://dbpedia.org/resource/Steve_Jobs')#0.465991132787

Evaluate semantic similarity metrics with word similarity datasets

from sematch.evaluation import WordSimEvaluation
from sematch.semantic.similarity import WordNetSimilarity
evaluation = WordSimEvaluation()
evaluation.dataset_names()
wns = WordNetSimilarity()
# define similarity metrics
wpath = lambda x, y: wns.word_similarity_wpath(x, y, 0.8)
# evaluate similarity metrics with SimLex dataset
evaluation.evaluate_metric('wpath', wpath, 'noun_simlex')
# performa Steiger's Z significance Test
evaluation.statistical_test('wpath', 'path', 'noun_simlex')
# define similarity metrics for Spanish words
wpath_es = lambda x, y: wns.monol_word_similarity(x, y, 'spa', 'path')
# define cross-lingual similarity metrics for English-Spanish
wpath_en_es = lambda x, y: wns.crossl_word_similarity(x, y, 'eng', 'spa', 'wpath')
# evaluate metrics in multilingual word similarity datasets
evaluation.evaluate_metric('wpath_es', wpath_es, 'rg65_spanish')
evaluation.evaluate_metric('wpath_en_es', wpath_en_es, 'rg65_EN-ES')

Evaluate semantic similarity metrics with category classification

Although the word similarity correlation measure is the standard way to evaluate the semantic similarity metrics, it relies on human judgements over word pairs which may not have same performance in real applications. Therefore, apart from word similarity evaluation, the Sematch evaluation framework also includes a simple aspect category classification. The task classifies noun concepts such as pasta, noodle, steak, tea into their ontological parent concept FOOD, DRINKS.

from sematch.evaluation import AspectEvaluation
from sematch.application import SimClassifier, SimSVMClassifier
from sematch.semantic.similarity import WordNetSimilarity

# create aspect classification evaluation
evaluation = AspectEvaluation()
# load the dataset
X, y = evaluation.load_dataset()
# define word similarity function
wns = WordNetSimilarity()
word_sim = lambda x, y: wns.word_similarity(x, y)
# Train and evaluate metrics with unsupervised classification model
simclassifier = SimClassifier.train(zip(X,y), word_sim)
evaluation.evaluate(X,y, simclassifier)

macro averge:  (0.65319812882333839, 0.7101245049198579, 0.66317566364913016, None)
micro average:  (0.79210167952791644, 0.79210167952791644, 0.79210167952791644, None)
weighted average:  (0.80842645056024054, 0.79210167952791644, 0.79639496616636352, None)
accuracy:  0.792101679528
             precision    recall  f1-score   support

    SERVICE       0.50      0.43      0.46       519
 RESTAURANT       0.81      0.66      0.73       228
       FOOD       0.95      0.87      0.91      2256
   LOCATION       0.26      0.67      0.37        54
   AMBIENCE       0.60      0.70      0.65       597
     DRINKS       0.81      0.93      0.87       752

avg / total       0.81      0.79      0.80      4406

Matching Entities with type using SPARQL queries

You can use Sematch to download a list of entities having a specific type using different languages. Sematch will generate SPARQL queries and execute them in DBpedia Sparql Endpoint.

from sematch.application import Matcher
matcher = Matcher()
# matching scientist entities from DBpedia
matcher.match_type('scientist')
matcher.match_type('científico', 'spa')
matcher.match_type('科学家', 'cmn')
matcher.match_entity_type('movies with Tom Cruise')

Example of automatically generated SPARQL query.

SELECT DISTINCT ?s, ?label, ?abstract WHERE {
    {  
    ?s <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/NuclearPhysicist110364643> . }
 UNION {  
    ?s <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/Econometrician110043491> . }
 UNION {  
    ?s <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/Sociologist110620758> . }
 UNION {  
    ?s <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/Archeologist109804806> . }
 UNION {  
    ?s <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/Neurolinguist110354053> . } 
    ?s <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Thing> . 
    ?s <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label> ?label . 
    FILTER( lang(?label) = "en") . 
    ?s <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/abstract> ?abstract . 
    FILTER( lang(?abstract) = "en") .
} LIMIT 5000

Entity feature extraction with Similarity Graph

Apart from semantic matching of entities from DBpedia, you can also use Sematch to extract features of entities and apply semantic similarity analysis using graph-based ranking algorithms. Given a list of objects (concepts, words, entities), Sematch compute their pairwise semantic similarity and generate similarity graph where nodes denote objects and edges denote similarity scores. An example of using similarity graph for extracting important words from an entity description.

from sematch.semantic.graph import SimGraph
from sematch.semantic.similarity import WordNetSimilarity
from sematch.nlp import Extraction, word_process
from sematch.semantic.sparql import EntityFeatures
from collections import Counter
tom = EntityFeatures().features('http://dbpedia.org/resource/Tom_Cruise')
words = Extraction().extract_nouns(tom['abstract'])
words = word_process(words)
wns = WordNetSimilarity()
word_graph = SimGraph(words, wns.word_similarity)
word_scores = word_graph.page_rank()
words, scores =zip(*Counter(word_scores).most_common(10))
print words
(u'picture', u'action', u'number', u'film', u'post', u'sport', 
u'program', u'men', u'performance', u'motion')

Publications

Ganggao Zhu, and Carlos A. Iglesias. "Computing Semantic Similarity of Concepts in Knowledge Graphs." IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 29.1 (2017): 72-85.

Oscar Araque, Ganggao Zhu, Manuel Garcia-Amado and Carlos A. Iglesias Mining the Opinionated Web: Classification and Detection of Aspect Contexts for Aspect Based Sentiment Analysis, ICDM sentire, 2016.

Ganggao Zhu, and Carlos Angel Iglesias. "Sematch: Semantic Entity Search from Knowledge Graph." SumPre-HSWI@ ESWC. 2015.


Support

You can post bug reports and feature requests in Github issues. Make sure to read our guidelines first. This project is still under active development approaching to its goals. The project is mainly maintained by Ganggao Zhu. You can contact him via gzhu [at] dit.upm.es


Why this name, Sematch and Logo?

The name of Sematch is composed based on Spanish "se" and English "match". It is also the abbreviation of semantic matching because semantic similarity metrics helps to determine semantic distance of concepts, words, entities, instead of exact matching.

The logo of Sematch is based on Chinese Yin and Yang which is written in I Ching. Somehow, it correlates to 0 and 1 in computer science.

Author: Gsi-upm
Source Code: https://github.com/gsi-upm/sematch 
License: View license

#python #jupyternotebook #graph 

What is GEEK

Buddha Community

Semantic Similarity Framework for Knowledge Graph
Ruth  Nabimanya

Ruth Nabimanya

1621327800

Graphs and Knowledge Connexions. The Year of the Graph Newsletter, Autumn 2020

As 2020 is coming to an end, let’s see it off in style. Our journey in the world of Graph Analytics, Graph Databases, Knowledge Graphs and Graph AI culminate.

The representation of the relationships among data, information, knowledge and --ultimately-- wisdom, known as the data pyramid, has long been part of the language of information science. Digital transformation has made this relevant beyond the confines of information science. COVID-19 has brought years’ worth of digital transformation in just a few short months.

In this new knowledge-based digital world, encoding and making use of business and operational knowledge is the key to making progress and staying competitive. So how do we go from data to information, and from information to knowledge? This is the key question Knowledge Connexions aims to address.

Graphs in all shapes and forms are a key part of this.


Knowledge Connexions is a visionary event featuring a rich array of technological building blocks to support the transition to a knowledge-based economy: Connecting data, people and ideas, building a global knowledge ecosystem.

The Year of the Graph will be there, in the workshop “From databases to platforms: the evolution of Graph databases”. George Anadiotis, Alan Morrison, Steve Sarsfield, Juan Sequeda and Steven Xi bring many years of expertise in the domain, and will analyze Graph Databases from all possible angles.

This is the first step in the relaunch of the Year of the Graph Database Report. Year of the Graph Newsletter subscribers just got a 25% discount code. To be always in the know, subscribe to the newsletter, and follow the newly launched Year of the Graph account on Twitter! In addition to getting the famous YotG news stream every day, you will also get a 25% discount code.

#database #machine learning #artificial intelligence #data science #graph databases #graph algorithms #graph analytics #emerging technologies #knowledge graphs #semantic technologies

Luna  Mosciski

Luna Mosciski

1595924640

Graph Therapy: The Year of the Graph Newsletter, June/May 2020

Parts of the world are still in lockdown, while others are returning to some semblance of normalcy. Either way, while the last few months have given some things pause, they have boosted others. It seems like developments in the world of Graphs are among those that have been boosted.

An abundance of educational material on all things graph has been prepared and delivered online, and is now freely accessible, with more on the way.

Graph databases have been making progress and announcements, repositioning themselves by a combination of releasing new features, securing additional funds, and entering strategic partnerships.

A key graph database technology, RDF*, which enables compatibility between RDF and property graph databases, is gaining momentum and tool support.

And more cutting edge research combining graph AI and knowledge graphs is seeing the light, too. Buckle up and enjoy some graph therapy.


Stanford’s series of online seminars featured some of the world’s leading experts on all things graph. If you missed it, or if you’d like to have an overview of what was said, you can find summaries for each lecture in this series of posts by Bob Kasenchak and Ahren Lehnert. Videos from the lectures are available here.

Stanford Knowledge Graph Course Not-Quite-Live-Blog

Stanford University’s computer science department is offering a free class on Knowledge Graphs available to the public. Stanford is also making recordings of the class available via the class website.


Another opportunity to get up to speed with educational material: The entire program of the course “Information Service Engineering” at KIT - Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, is delivered online and made freely available on YouTube. It includes topics such as ontology design, knowledge graph programming, basic graph theory, and more.

Information Service Engineering at KIT

Knowledge representation as a prerequisite for knowledge graphs. Learn about knowledge representation, ontologies, RDF(S), OWL, SPARQL, etc.


Ontology may sound like a formal term, while knowledge graph is a more approachable one. But the 2 are related, and so is ontology and AI. Without a consistent, thoughtful approach to developing, applying, evolving an ontology, AI systems lack underpinning that would allow them to be smart enough to make an impact.

The ontology is an investment that will continue to pay off, argue Seth Earley and Josh Bernoff in Harvard Business Review, making the case for how businesses may benefit from a knowldge-centric approach

Is Your Data Infrastructure Ready for AI?

Even after multiple generations of investments and billions of dollars of digital transformations, organizations struggle to use data to improve customer service, reduce costs, and speed the core processes that provide competitive advantage. AI was supposed to help with that.


Besides AI, knowledge graphs have a part to play in the Cloud, too. State is good, and lack of support for Stateful Cloud-native applications is a roadblock for many enterprise use-cases, writes Dave Duggal.

Graph knowledge bases are an old idea now being revisited to model complex, distributed domains. Combining high-level abstraction with Cloud-native design principles offers efficient “Context-as-a-Service” for hydrating stateless services. Graph knowledge-based systems can enable composition of Cloud-native services into event-driven dataflow processes.

Kubernetes also touches upon Organizational Knowledge, and that may be modeled as a Knowledge Graph.

Graph Knowledge Base for Stateful Cloud-Native Applications

Extending graph knowledge bases to model distributed systems creates a new kind of information system, one intentionally designed for today’s IT challenges.


The Enterprise Knowledge Graph Foundation was recently established to define best practices and mature the marketplace for EKG adoption, with a launch webinar on June the 23rd.

The Foundation defines its mission as including adopting semantic standards, developing best practices for accelerated EKG deployment, curating a repository of reusable models and resources, building a mechanism for engagement and shared knowledge, and advancing the business cases for EKG adoption.

Enterprise Knowledge Graph Maturity Model

The Enterprise Knowledge Graph Maturity Model (EKG/MM) is the industry-standard definition of the capabilities required for an enterprise knowledge graph. It establishes standard criteria for measuring progress and sets out the practical questions that all involved stakeholders ask to ensure trust, confidence and usage flexibility of data. Each capability area provides a business summary denoting its importance, a definition of the added value from semantic standards and scoring criteria based on five levels of defined maturity.


Enterprise Knowledge Graphs is what the Semantic Web Company (SWC) and Ontotext have been about for a long time, too. Two of the vendors in this space that have been around for the longer time just announced a strategic partnership: Ontotext, a graph database and platform provider, meets SWC, a management and added value layer that sits on top.

SWC and Ontotext CEOs emphasize how their portfolios are complementary, while the press release states that the companies have implemented a seamless integration of the PoolParty Semantic Suite™ v.8 with the GraphDB™ and Ontotext Platform, which offers benefits for many use cases.

#database #artificial intelligence #graph databases #rdf #graph analytics #knowledge graph #graph technology

Luna  Mosciski

Luna Mosciski

1595932020

Graph Therapy: The Year of the Graph Newsletter, June/May 2020

Parts of the world are still in lockdown, while others are returning to some semblance of normalcy. Either way, while the last few months have given some things pause, they have boosted others. It seems like developments in the world of Graphs are among those that have been boosted.

An abundance of educational material on all things graph has been prepared and delivered online, and is now freely accessible, with more on the way.

Graph databases have been making progress and announcements, repositioning themselves by a combination of releasing new features, securing additional funds, and entering strategic partnerships.

A key graph database technology, RDF*, which enables compatibility between RDF and property graph databases, is gaining momentum and tool support.

And more cutting edge research combining graph AI and knowledge graphs is seeing the light, too. Buckle up and enjoy some graph therapy.


Stanford’s series of online seminars featured some of the world’s leading experts on all things graph. If you missed it, or if you’d like to have an overview of what was said, you can find summaries for each lecture in this series of posts by Bob Kasenchak and Ahren Lehnert. Videos from the lectures are available here.

Stanford Knowledge Graph Course Not-Quite-Live-Blog

Stanford University’s computer science department is offering a free class on Knowledge Graphs available to the public. Stanford is also making recordings of the class available via the class website.


Another opportunity to get up to speed with educational material: The entire program of the course “Information Service Engineering” at KIT - Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, is delivered online and made freely available on YouTube. It includes topics such as ontology design, knowledge graph programming, basic graph theory, and more.

Information Service Engineering at KIT

Knowledge representation as a prerequisite for knowledge graphs. Learn about knowledge representation, ontologies, RDF(S), OWL, SPARQL, etc.


Ontology may sound like a formal term, while knowledge graph is a more approachable one. But the 2 are related, and so is ontology and AI. Without a consistent, thoughtful approach to developing, applying, evolving an ontology, AI systems lack underpinning that would allow them to be smart enough to make an impact.

The ontology is an investment that will continue to pay off, argue Seth Earley and Josh Bernoff in Harvard Business Review, making the case for how businesses may benefit from a knowldge-centric approach

Is Your Data Infrastructure Ready for AI?

Even after multiple generations of investments and billions of dollars of digital transformations, organizations struggle to use data to improve customer service, reduce costs, and speed the core processes that provide competitive advantage. AI was supposed to help with that.


Besides AI, knowledge graphs have a part to play in the Cloud, too. State is good, and lack of support for Stateful Cloud-native applications is a roadblock for many enterprise use-cases, writes Dave Duggal.

Graph knowledge bases are an old idea now being revisited to model complex, distributed domains. Combining high-level abstraction with Cloud-native design principles offers efficient “Context-as-a-Service” for hydrating stateless services. Graph knowledge-based systems can enable composition of Cloud-native services into event-driven dataflow processes.

Kubernetes also touches upon Organizational Knowledge, and that may be modeled as a Knowledge Graph.

Graph Knowledge Base for Stateful Cloud-Native Applications

Extending graph knowledge bases to model distributed systems creates a new kind of information system, one intentionally designed for today’s IT challenges.


The Enterprise Knowledge Graph Foundation was recently established to define best practices and mature the marketplace for EKG adoption, with a launch webinar on June the 23rd.

The Foundation defines its mission as including adopting semantic standards, developing best practices for accelerated EKG deployment, curating a repository of reusable models and resources, building a mechanism for engagement and shared knowledge, and advancing the business cases for EKG adoption.

Enterprise Knowledge Graph Maturity Model

The Enterprise Knowledge Graph Maturity Model (EKG/MM) is the industry-standard definition of the capabilities required for an enterprise knowledge graph. It establishes standard criteria for measuring progress and sets out the practical questions that all involved stakeholders ask to ensure trust, confidence and usage flexibility of data. Each capability area provides a business summary denoting its importance, a definition of the added value from semantic standards and scoring criteria based on five levels of defined maturity.


Enterprise Knowledge Graphs is what the Semantic Web Company (SWC) and Ontotext have been about for a long time, too. Two of the vendors in this space that have been around for the longer time just announced a strategic partnership: Ontotext, a graph database and platform provider, meets SWC, a management and added value layer that sits on top.

SWC and Ontotext CEOs emphasize how their portfolios are complementary, while the press release states that the companies have implemented a seamless integration of the PoolParty Semantic Suite™ v.8 with the GraphDB™ and Ontotext Platform, which offers benefits for many use cases.

#database #artificial intelligence #graph databases #rdf #graph analytics #knowledge graph #graph technology

Arno  Bradtke

Arno Bradtke

1600262040

Towards a Knowledge Graph Economy. The Year of the Graph Newsletter, Summer 2020

Knowledge graphs have become an iconic technology trend for a reason. Knowledge graphs exemplify the emphasis on knowledge, and connections.

These past few months have not been kind to any of us. The ripples caused by the COVID-19 pandemic are felt far and wide, and the world’s economies have taken a staggering blow.

Is there hope? And what’s that got to do with graphs, you might ask. Knowledge graphs have become an iconic technology trend for a reason. Knowledge graphs exemplify the emphasis on knowledge, and connections.

In the current state of the economy, knowledge-based and remotely delivered activities have an advantage over service-based ones requiring real-world interaction. Whether this is necessarily a good thing is another issue entirely.

In any case, we have to note the fact that knowledge graphs seem a natural fit for the unofficial title of the foundation on which a next-day economy can be built.


That’s the thinking behind Connected Data London’s Meetup on September the 23rd. Steering towards a knowledge-based economy - how knowledge graphs can catalyze digital transformation and AI in the enterprise and beyond.

A UBS Information Architect will talk about a data revolution - the emergence of the decentralized Enterprise Knowledge Graph to vastly increase data connectivity.

The CEO of Franz Inc will outline the future of AI in the Enterprise is tied to Entity-Event Knowledge Graphs for Data-Centric organizations.

A Knowledge Engineer from Engine B will show how Knowledge Graphs can be used for Data integrity, innovation and digitalization in professional services.

#machine learning #artificial intelligence #analytics #graph databases #graph algorithms #knowledge graphs

Hollie  Ratke

Hollie Ratke

1599919200

Buckle Up and Enjoy Some Graph Therapy

Parts of the world are still in lockdown, while others are returning to some semblance of normalcy. Either way, while the last few months have given some things pause, they have boosted others. It seems like developments in the world of Graph are among those that have been boosted.

An abundance of educational material on all things graph has been prepared and delivered online, and is now freely accessible, with more on the way.

Graph databases have been making progress and announcements, repositioning themselves by a combination of releasing new features, securing additional funds, and entering strategic partnerships.

A key graph database technology, RDF*, which enables compatibility between RDF and property graph databases, is gaining momentum and tool support.

And more cutting edge research combining graph AI and knowledge graphs is seeing the light, too. Buckle up and enjoy some graph therapy.

Stanford’s series of online seminars featured some of the world’s leading experts on all things graph. If you missed it, or if you’d like to have an overview of what was said, you can find summaries for each lecture in this series of posts by Bob Kasenchak and Ahren Lehnert. Videos from the lectures are available here.

#knowledge-graph #graph-database #graph-neural-networks #artificial-intelligence #newsletter #big-data #data-science #graph-therapy