Talk:Knowledge base

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

text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: The quote you give doesn't appear anywhere in the current article. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External link goes to the wrong site

message: === 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)
thread_title:  Merge Domain knowledge in Knowledge base 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Two different things 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Don't merge 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Don't merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Don't merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I'm Going to Remove Merge Proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Plan to Rewrite this Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Common use broader than original meaning and current article definition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removing Section on KB Analysis and Design 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why I'm Removing Transinsight from External Links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Whats the difference between "Knowledge Base" and "Knowledge Graph" ? 

message: *
 Bluerasberry (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey of knowledge graphs