World Knowledge Graph

Logseq has the goal to build a world knowledge graph

→

Finally, we’re building the collaborative World Knowledge Graph: a second open internet that connects the knowledge graphs/brains of every human and every knowledge repository in the world. It holds all ideas ever thought or proven about the universe. Think of a Wikipedia + GitHub 2.0–type a little, click commit/share and boom… you’ve advanced the frontier of human knowledge.

→

https://adventurous-ragdoll-1e0.notion.site/Who-is-Logseq-2ccab355138e4caaaa01ef581f9335eb

→

https://blog.logseq.com/logseq-raises-4-1m-to-accelerate-growth-of-the-new-world-knowledge-graph/

→

This is generally something I’m very interested in! Seems like there’s a lot of potential benefit here

→

Joel Chan has thought about this too

→

↑ 4 References

This prototypes a possible way to link between different people’s knowledge graphs using the familiar structure of URLs. This relates to the idea of a World Knowledge Graph, and I discuss it more in my post on How Logseq should build a World Knowledge Graph.

→

As we have more AI tools to help us navigate and digest the internet, we will move more towards the internet being a World Knowledge Graph that we use AI to interface with. Websites will become less visited and less central to the way we engage with the content on the internet

→

I’m not sure how Logseq is planning to build their stated World Knowledge Graph, but this seems like a reasonable way to begin letting users add structure to their personal knowledge graphs that could eventually be integrated with other knowledge graphs.

→

If this were to become central to Logseq’s direction, it would make sense to store these relationships in the Logseq database. That would solve any latency concerns and create a very strong foundation for building tools to interface with your knowledge graph.

→

Logseq has a stated goal to build a World Knowledge Graph. Here’s what I think they should build:

→

Allow users to build knowledge graphs with their notes

→

See my proposal for how to do this here: Building a knowledge graph in Logseq

→

Allow users to check that their knowledge graph is a category, and treat it as one

→

do I mean bicartesian closed category?

→

this would probably be in the category of “sets of notes”, and if a user has not stated a relationship between two notes, then that relationship can return the “empty set”

→

this also means allowing for users to treat combinations of notes like notes of their own

→

AND

→

[[organization]] [[meeting]] [[date]]

→

If in one block I link to all of these names together then I am essentially linking to this page which is an AND of all these three other pages

→

The key functionality here is for Logseq to treat this combination page like it is a page of its own, and allowing for natural navigation to related pages.

→

Related pages include: [[organization]] [[meeting]] to zoom out to all meetings with that organization

→

This is different from namespaces because we don’t want to dictate a hierarchy:

→

[[organization]] [[date]] and [[organization]] [[meeting]] should be “siblings”

→

[[organization]] [[meeting]] [[date]] does not need meeting to be the namespace for date or vice versa

→

allowing for links in names should take care of a lot of this

→

[[organization a]], [[organization b]], [[project c]]

→

this is a bit harder, but I think it could have some interesting uses

→

The default syntax for this feels like it should be to use commas

→

This is OR page is then treated like a page of its own

→

notably a link to any of the pages in the OR page shows up as a reference in the OR page

→

this is different from AND because only references that mention all of the pages in the AND show up in references

→

Create a general knowledge ontology that users can create translations into

→

there can be multiple “general ontologies”, perhaps for different industries or areas (academic research, corporate documentation, etc)

→

for example, a general ontology may be like Joel Chan’s Discourse Graph (types: question, claim, evidence, etc.. relationships: supports, opposes, informs, etc)

→

if a user can translate their knowledge graph into this “discourse graph ontology”, then other users can see how to utilize that user’s knowledge graph in the context of a discourse graph ontology

→

a user could create this translation / functor by describing how that user’s knowledge graph types and relationships map to the general ontology’s types and relationships

→

Translations = functors

→

here I am using the term Category Theory term functor to describe a (potentially lossy) translation between two “knowledge graphs”

→

Make it possible to publish a subset of your knowledge graph, and integrate other knowledge graphs into your own

→

if personal knowledge graphs x and y both have functors to general knowledge graph a, then it becomes possible to integrate x and y so that you can extract knowledge from x into y (or vice versa)

→

among other details, it would be necessary to let other people’s knowledge graphs live alongside your own, without taking over my own content

→

Search Results

World Knowledge Graph

↑ 4 References

More notes