Talk:Knowledge base

untitled

Why does the page need cleanup? Is the referencing template done correctly? Dustintime (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This article has potential, but it doesn't really explain to the idea to a new reader well; also needs more inline references that support the narrative and aren't adverts or propoganda for different institutions. Anyone will to make the first attempt? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

---

External link goes to the wrong site

Test One of the external links, to the Open Source Knowledge Base, oskb.org, actually goes to a site called Our Site Kicks Butt, which has nothing to do with knowledge bases. Perhaps this link should be removed? Mraj 14:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Mraj

---

I'm wondering what this passage means... What is meant by "processes that support the system" and "a robust process structure"? What might an example of such a process be?

"Determining what type of information is captured, and where that information resides in a knowledge base is something that is determined by the processes that support the system. A robust process structure is the backbone of any successful knowledge base." Dave.excira 22:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

But I think the more accurate definition will be the expert system’s database of knowledge about a particular subject. This includes relevant facts, information, beliefs, assumptions, and procedures for solving problems.

---

• "A knowledge base... is the base for the collection of knowledge." I'm not sure that this article is saying anything worth saying. --pode 06:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Does this page need disambiguation? It seems that there are 2 concepts of knowledge base in this article.

The first meaning seems to be something for corpororations to keep their documents in. At least that is what I understand from the list ...white papers, user manuals etc etc. See for example the link to this company: http://www.knowledgebase.net/

The other meaning is related to Artificial intelligence. A base for the computer to keep his knowledge organized. All links, both wiki and external seem to have this meaning in mind.

A system to keep documents in is more accurately termed a "Document Management System." A knowledgebase is more specific; it contains articles that define a body of knowledge, and is used to discover solutions to problems that have already been solved. See The Microsoft Support Knowledgebase (sic) for an example. Robertwharvey 07:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I don't understand two of the exterlinks (the one to the Java Community Page, and to Computational Logic). Can somebody explain to me why they are relevant?

Thanks, Sander123 07:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One of the exterlinks (["Open Source Knowledge Base"]) leads to a site called "Our Site Kicks Butt", which, to the best of my knowledge, contains no information about Knowledge Bases of any kind. Is this an outdated link, or a mislink? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mraj (talk • contribs) .

It doesn't seem relevant, so I've removed it. Good catch. Gwernol 15:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Knowledge Base is 3 to 1 more popular than "knowledgebase" in google, and, infact, is marked as a suspected spelling error. We at Cycorp don't use it as a single word, and, I think, if it were standard practice to do so, we'd know and comply. It's unclear whether this will catch on - as a potential word "knowledgebase" if *far* uglier than "database".

In any case, the claim that it's becoming standard usage, like any claims, needs to be sourced.

---

Knowledge base makes no sense at all wat is "A knowledge base... is the base for the collection of knowledge." supposed to mean it dosen't make any sense someone needs to fix it!

The quote you give doesn't appear anywhere in the current article. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Can DNA database and MANET database be considered as a KnowledgeBase Database? I think any informatics database, that some degree of artificial intelligence or analytical ability can be considered as a knowledgebase right? --Ramu50 (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge Domain knowledge in Knowledge base

Two different things

A knowledge base may contain a collection of domain knowledge, but the two terms are used quite differently. In common English usage, "domain knowledge" is something that a person has, but a "knowledge base" is computerized; you would never say that a person "has a knowledge base on subject xyz" though you might say they have lots of domain knowledge in the area. Also a knowledge base (in the commercial sense) might span multiple "domains." For example, the Microsoft KB might contain information for users, developers, and administrators of MS software across multiple "domains," for example word processing, databases, operating systems, various programming APIs, and so on. Nevertheless they could be a part of the same KB.

Both articles could use some TLC, but I don't think merging them makes any sense.

Part of the problem may be that this page might benefit from disambiguation as an early comment suggests; perhaps splitting it into two topics such as:

• Knowledge base (information science) - with the discussion of machine-readable KBs.
• Knowledge base (software) - with the discussion of human-readable KBs.

This may or may not be a good idea.... I'm just throwing it out there.

--Crandmck (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't merge

A knowledge base need not contain domain knowledge; DBpedia can be considered a general-purpose (or open domain) knowledge base. Qwertyus (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad idea

They are two very different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.158.206.100 (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't merge

The are completely separate concepts, as you even state in your proposal. Merging them would be impossible. We should instead try to eliminate references from one to the other to more clearly delineate the separation in these 2 concepts. Shall we retrieve this grenade that was "just tossed out there" by deleting the tag? This would be the first step in insuring that the distinction between these two topics is maintained. Hobsonlane (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't merge

I agree with the majority of other votes. I am usually in favor of merging things, in general I think people tend to create too many articles but in this case, no, absolutely not they are related topics but different. IMO I would say domain knowledge is something abstract a knowledge base is a technology to capture and utilize domain knowledge. In any case we don't need to agree what they both are but I definitely agree they are different concepts and deserve their own articles. RedDog (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm Going to Remove Merge Proposal

There seems to be a consensus and I see no point in leaving the merge tag and will remove it. RedDog (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Plan to Rewrite this Article

There are no really solid references here right now. I've been working on the Expert Systems and Knowledge Based Systems articles so it's natural I took a look at this one and I think this one needs lots of work as well. Informally, here is my idea for a revised article. A knowledge base was first used in expert systems. At that point the distinction between a KB and DB was clear and distinct. a DB had transactions. large data, flat data, data that was meant to be permanent. A KB had no transactions, structured and connected data (networks of objects rather than tables of data), relatively small transitory data compared to DB. As the technologies matured the various categories of storage merged in with each other. KB technology for expert systems scaled up with capabilities to access databases and database technology added capabilities for objects and rules. Also, both sides added features to store documents, hypertext, voice, and multimedia. A KB went from a specific technology for expert systems to a general purpose word indicating some extra intelligence beyond a database. Also, I would talk about knowledge management as one of the drivers and utilizers of the term later on. That's just my basic idea right now, I'm reading up on and getting some references and plan to give it some thought but in case anyone is monitoring and has ideas wanted to ask for input. RedDog (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article along the lines described in the above paragraph. It still needs a lot of work. The current article has no sections and could use some structure. But it's IMO a major improvement over what was there and I think at least a decent starting point. RedDog (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Very new to the backside of wikipedia, so apologies in advance if I violate any norms. I happened to read the old entry on knowledge base and came back to the revision that you've created. While I understand the goal in your edits, I missed the content that you removed, specifically about what in the old entry was included in the "human readable knowledge base." My interest in this article was specifically in the use of the term "knowledge base" as used as a support to help desks and other knowledge sharing systems. It would seem to me that there would be a way to incorporate both ideas in the same entry or use disambiguation to create to distinct entries to cover both uses of the term. Bekadel (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree there should be more on help desks. That is an example of the knowledge management (human readable text not machine readable) use of the term knowledge base. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The article was much better before it turned into a rambling wall of text that conflates two different uses of the term "knowledge base" and contains such howlers as "At the time (the 1970's) virtually all computer programs stored their information in some type of hierarchical or relational database." 99.122.168.208 (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

On the computer programs comment I think it depends how you define "hierarchical database". If you include things like hash tables, arrays, trees, etc. I.e., saying "database" doesn't need to imply a DBMS. With the wider definition I think the statement is true and I've heard people use the term database that way. But perhaps a different word such as "datastore" might be better? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I changed "computer software" to "large Management Information Systems" and added a link to MIS. I think that was what the text originally had in mind but I agree saying all software wasn't accurate if you include things like real time and embedded systems. BTW, I also agree with the "wall of text" comment that this article could certainly use more structure. I may take a shot at that. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Common use broader than original meaning and current article definition

A very common (most widespread?) use of 'knowledge base' is about an information repository as part of Knowledge management, eg, a wiki. I would suggest that this article's title should be modified to 'Knowledge base (computer science)' and a new article about the more commonly understood meaning of a knowledge repository for use by people should be titled 'Knowledge base' AiwarikiaR (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing Section on KB Analysis and Design

There is currently a small section that simply says "Knowledge base analysis and design (KBAD) is a process that enables people to conduct analysis and design of information in a way that results in a knowledge base. This approach was first implemented by Steven H. Dam.[3]" The reference is useless. There is no URL and nothing that provides any identifying information that would allow someone to find the reference. My guess is it's an internal publication of some company (at best) or someone's thesis (more likely) in any case it's not a valid reference and I've never heard of the approach that it refers to so I'm just deleting the entire section. RedDog (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Why I'm Removing Transinsight from External Links

Someone recently added the following link to the External Links: http://transinsight.com/ I looked at the site and it looks like a Knowledge Management/Semantic Web vendor. I'm removing the link for a couple of reasons. First, we can't just randomly put every vendor who has some technology that is knowledge based. If we including this company we may as well have external links for hundreds of other companies as well. There is nothing notable or interesting about Transinsight compared to countless other such vendors. Also, if that vendor was to go anywhere it would make more sense on the articles for Knowledge Management or Semantic Web not Knowledge Base. I don't think this vendor would be appropriate there either, but I'm just saying they are more relevant to those topics than to the Knowledge Base article. RedDog (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought I would add the reason I left the Protege link which was in the article before I started. Protege is one of the most important tools around right now related to knowledge base technology. The classificaiton technology they use is really the direct descendent of the work started by expert system shell vendors, then leading to Frame and OO Vendors such as Intellicorp. If you look at the Protege environment it feels a lot like the Knowledge Engineering Environment from Intellicorp. They are solving different problems, KEE was for programming Protege is for analysis but the environments and many of the ideas are the same and Protege builds on ideas (e.g., Subsumption, Ontologies, LOOM) that were very critical developments in the conception of an AI knowledge base. I hope to work some of what I said there into the article at some point but for now wanted to document why I think it makes sense to keep Protege and not the other link. One last point, Protege is Open Source and non-profit so there isn't the concern that someone is using the External Link as promotion for their product as there is with Transinsight and some other vendors. RedDog (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Whats the difference between "Knowledge Base" and "Knowledge Graph" ?

see the discussion on Knowledge Graph. I had always thought 'knowledge-graph' was a generic term (indeed papers exist). However google seem to have claimed it as a product name. Do I have a misconception here? in the discussion people confirm that academic papers exist describing knowledge-graphs long before googles product. I had thought 'wolfram alpha' used that kind of tech internally.

Fmadd (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Survey of knowledge graphs

• Ji, Shaoxiong; Pan, Shirui; Cambria, Erik; Marttinen, Pekka; Yu, Philip S. (2020). "A Survey on Knowledge Graphs: Representation, Acquisition and Applications". doi:10.48550/arXiv.2002.00388. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Bluerasberry (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)