6 ms·

Freebase isn't the same thing as Google Knowledge graph. Freebase contains 22M entities (according to the wikipedia entry), while the knowledge graph contains 5

by tonfa 14y ago

Freebase isn't the same thing as Google Knowledge graph. Freebase contains 22M entities (according to the wikipedia entry), while the knowledge graph contains 500M entities (according to google announcement).

PaulHoule 14y ago
Actually the 500M (or 400M or 300M) or whatever number is bogus. We do know that they ported "graphd", the Freebase database, to Google's infrastructure. Really nothing happened at Freebase for a year and a half while they were doing this. They've probably created a very large Freebase graph for scale testing and it's likely that they're able to handle 500M entities from a hardware perspective. If you look at how often the GKG comes up in search, it clearly doesn't come up very often. So the process that makes the visible GKG is a process of subtraction, not addition. There are many topics where the GKG could give you an answer from Freebase but it doesn't, and they prune many of them away because they don't want to take the chance of giving wild answers. It's more likely that 1 or 1.5 million topics are in the visible GKG.
- j_baker 14y ago
  I'm not at liberty to go into much detail here, but there are a number of things that are in the KG that aren't in freebase. The process giveth and the process taketh away.
- rryan 14y ago
  > Actually the 500M (or 400M or 300M) or whatever number is bogus. Could you provide some sources here? > They've probably created a very large Freebase graph for scale testing and it's likely that they're able to handle 500M entities from a hardware perspective. If this were reality it would be a pretty big lie on Google's part. Why do you think this is the case? EDIT: OK, now I realize why your comments trigger my BS alarm. It's in your interest to represent the Google knowledge-graph as being equivalent to Freebase/metaweb (a Google acquisition many years ago. Do you really think they did nothing to increase their graph since that acquisition?) because you are the founder of Ontology2 (the company providing this service). You really should mention that somewhere in this thread or on your profile (I realize your comments elsewhere in this thread allude to it -- for the claims you are making without sources that's not enough IMHO).
- narphorium 14y ago
  The Knowledge Graph is growing quite quickly as we add more and more data sources. Freebase is one of those sources but there are obviously others that make up the full 500M entities. The rate at which we add entities to the Knowledge Graph is different from the rate at which those entities appear in search. What you see in search now is just part of the Knowledge Graph but we're continuously increasing the coverage while making sure that the quality of the data remains extremely high. I guess that's what you would call the "visible GKG"; to us, its all one big graph.
- ThisIBereave 14y ago
  Yes, but what you're providing is _not_ the Google Knowledge graph. You should not claim that you are.
  - PaulHoule 14y ago
    It's not the same thing but it's the closest thing available. I go around saying there's no ring to bind them all but that an arbitrarily good aproximation can be built.

by tonfa 14y ago

PaulHoule 14y ago

Actually the 500M (or 400M or 300M) or whatever number is bogus. We do know that they ported "graphd", the Freebase database, to Google's infrastructure. Really nothing happened at Freebase for a year and a half while they were doing this. They've probably created a very large Freebase graph for scale testing and it's likely that they're able to handle 500M entities from a hardware perspective. If you look at how often the GKG comes up in search, it clearly doesn't come up very often. So the process that makes the visible GKG is a process of subtraction, not addition. There are many topics where the GKG could give you an answer from Freebase but it doesn't, and they prune many of them away because they don't want to take the chance of giving wild answers. It's more likely that 1 or 1.5 million topics are in the visible GKG.

j_baker 14y ago
I'm not at liberty to go into much detail here, but there are a number of things that are in the KG that aren't in freebase. The process giveth and the process taketh away.
rryan 14y ago
> Actually the 500M (or 400M or 300M) or whatever number is bogus. Could you provide some sources here? > They've probably created a very large Freebase graph for scale testing and it's likely that they're able to handle 500M entities from a hardware perspective. If this were reality it would be a pretty big lie on Google's part. Why do you think this is the case? EDIT: OK, now I realize why your comments trigger my BS alarm. It's in your interest to represent the Google knowledge-graph as being equivalent to Freebase/metaweb (a Google acquisition many years ago. Do you really think they did nothing to increase their graph since that acquisition?) because you are the founder of Ontology2 (the company providing this service). You really should mention that somewhere in this thread or on your profile (I realize your comments elsewhere in this thread allude to it -- for the claims you are making without sources that's not enough IMHO).
narphorium 14y ago
The Knowledge Graph is growing quite quickly as we add more and more data sources. Freebase is one of those sources but there are obviously others that make up the full 500M entities. The rate at which we add entities to the Knowledge Graph is different from the rate at which those entities appear in search. What you see in search now is just part of the Knowledge Graph but we're continuously increasing the coverage while making sure that the quality of the data remains extremely high. I guess that's what you would call the "visible GKG"; to us, its all one big graph.
ThisIBereave 14y ago
Yes, but what you're providing is _not_ the Google Knowledge graph. You should not claim that you are.
- PaulHoule 14y ago
  It's not the same thing but it's the closest thing available. I go around saying there's no ring to bind them all but that an arbitrarily good aproximation can be built.