3 ms·
The implied relation between nodes seems to be "is related to" or "is associated with" - the same kind of babble you see in PubMed research where authors don't
by gardenfelder 4y ago
The implied relation between nodes seems to be "is related to" or "is associated with" - the same kind of babble you see in PubMed research where authors don't want to go out on limbs and make causal claims.
I would argue that a rich knowledge tool should spend a lot of time teasing out the nature of those relationships.
Having said that, this class of visual tool is going to see a lively future.
- cyclecycle 4y agoI agree, it's currently very superficial. It would be great to recognise and show more about the specific nature of the relationships. What kind of thing would you hope to see here? A textual summary of the relationship? Or perhaps there is more that can be done with shapes and colours in this area?
- gardenfelder 4y agoThis is a rich topic and great question, one to which we should all try offer answers. From my experience, I work with topic maps - extremely rich knowledge graphs, and an ISO 13250 standard, and I work with NLP, which entails a lot more detail than just talking about relations: they are first class citizens (subjects) in a graph, not just labeled arcs. I spoke about them here [1] [1] https://www.slideshare.net/jackpark/lbd-tm2 https://www.slideshare.net/jackpark/lbd-tm2