Re: What is a Knowledge Graph? CORRECTION

On 19.06.2019 13:15, adasal wrote:
> Do you mean "ascribed"?
>
Probably a better phrasing. Mainly he wanted to prevent people from 
mining at the symbol level for knowledge nuggets.
>
> "Or take the point of view of Newell, 1982. Knowledge is **ascribed** 
> to an agent by an observer that applies the concept of (bounded) 
> rationality to explain [its] **the agent's** ability in achieving goals.
>
> What about more than one observer and, or, subject?
>
Then you have several knowledge level descriptions and the process of 
agreement starts. Obviously, it is a very interesting question on why 
and how do subjects agree on an object and its description and what is 
the essence of it.
> What about the observer who is the subject of their own observations?
>
Well, for fundamental reasons it will always be quite a limited 
description as long as a you keep infinity such as the Hilbert hotel out 
of the game.
>
> Anyway, the main issue here is that it is possible to abstract 
> knowledge as information and then extract knowledge from that 
> information later. There are times, parties and places (changing 
> contexts) involved in this.
>
Knowledge may be a much more fluffy concept than you may expect.
>