Hacker News Reader

Comment by wirthjason | Hacker News Reader

I like the idea of concepts, categories, and data but I had trouble seeing how it fits into the traditional knowledge graph structure of tuples that I am used to.

View on HN

  (Product) -> (bookshelf) -> (billy white 80cm)

The above would be the graph representation of concepts, categories, and data. In RDF triple terms of subject-predicate-object it could be represented as:

  Product (s) has a (p) bookshelf (o)
  Billy white 80cm (s) is a (a) bookshelf (o)

It is actually (in pseudo RDF):

[BILLY bookcase in white 80x28x202 cm] rdf:type :Product . Product rdf:type :Class .

[BILLY bookcase in white 80x28x202 cm] :categorisedAs :bookcase . :bookCase rdf:type :Category .

*[ ] = IRI of that particular product

OWL2 does a good job of formalising these things. What they call concepts and categories would be Classes in OWL. What they call data would be Individuals.

The concepts are Classes in OWL and the categories are individuals of rdf:type Category.

Another analogy I can think of is food-related. The concept would be "bread". The categories would be "recipes for bread". The data would be "bread ingredients".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com