Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

OK Google, What Is Your Ontology? Or: Exploring Freebase Classification to Understand Google's Knowledge Graph

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1805.03885 v2 pith:6KYOKFYX submitted 2018-05-10 cs.IR cs.AIcs.DL

classification cs.IRcs.AIcs.DL
keywords googlefreebaseontologyknowledgeclassificationdatagraphwill
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper reconstructs the Freebase data dumps to understand the underlying ontology behind Google's semantic search feature. The Freebase knowledge base was a major Semantic Web and linked data technology that was acquired by Google in 2010 to support the Google Knowledge Graph, the backend for Google search results that include structured answers to queries instead of a series of links to external resources. After its shutdown in 2016, Freebase is contained in a data dump of 1.9 billion Resource Description Format (RDF) triples. A recomposition of the Freebase ontology will be analyzed in relation to concepts and insights from the literature on classification by Bowker and Star. This paper will explore how the Freebase ontology is shaped by many of the forces that also shape classification systems through a deep dive into the ontology and a small correlational study. These findings will provide a glimpse into the proprietary blackbox Knowledge Graph and what is meant by Google's mission to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful".

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Logical Consistency of Large Language Models in Fact-checking

    cs.CL 2024-12 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    LLMs are not logically consistent on propositional fact-checking queries over knowledge graphs, and supervised fine-tuning improves their consistency by 14 percentage points on average.

  2. Clinical Trials Ontology Engineering with Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    LLMs can generate and merge clinical trial ontologies at about one-thousandth of human cost, but with lower quality and no relationships between concepts.

Pith tools