Ironically, in your assesement of the Knowledge graph "what's so amazing?",
you've outlined exactly what is amazing.  We *don't* have to go to many
other resources to find out the details of the singer.  It's gathered for
us in one place because the data is in fact linked together.  I take issue
with Wikipedia being the source, but the way I see it is that it is a
'proof of concept' of how linked data can work for us.

And yes, admittedly out catalog/search systems need work.  So if we are
going to undertake a revolution in how they work, it would be prudent to
see how the underlying data can be altered as well to suit the needs we and
researchers may have.



On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 2:33 AM, James Weinheimer <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 2/24/2016 9:44 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>> Another place we see Google using their Linked Data is in their Knowledge
>> Graph Search API:
>> Search results link to a full page description as opposed to the "card"
>> they present in their regular search results. For example:
>> They don't provide access to their underlying graph, but this makes it
>> easier to imagine the possibilities.
> So exactly what are the possibilities here that are so amazing? In this
> Knowledge Graph, Google ripped off information from Wikipedia, where we
> learn her age, we get a picture, her height, her parents, her siblings.
> People can easily find this sort of biographical information in a lot of
> places now. We also discover a few of her songs, her profiles, a few of her
> albums, and we also discover that people who searched for her also searched
> for Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber, among others. Big whoop. I am not
> saying this is bad, but what is so amazing about it? It's like looking her
> up in an encyclopedia or even a fanzine.
> If we compare this with just a Worldcat search,
> there is a lot more there *IF* we know how to look at it. We discover what
> she created, and if the facets were more user friendly (I don't know how
> many users understand the facets), we could limit by format, by the people
> she worked with, languages, dates, "content" and "topic" (library science?
> Art and architecture? Really?).
> If we compare the Google Knowledge Graph with Worldcat Identities,
> we get something
> that (at least I think) is potentially the most interesting of all. There
> are "Related identities" but I think the "Associated subjects" found at the
> bottom could potentially be the most useful because people who are
> interested in her might discover new insights into her work. I confess that
> I did. Being in Rome, Italy, I don't know much about her, but some of the
> subjects are interesting. (The links could work *much* better, by the way)
> All brought to you by the catalogers of the world!
> This is the kind of information that catalogers make that I believe the
> public could learn to appreciate if they could just see and use it. And you
> don't need linked data to any of it--just different views of our own
> records.
> James Weinheimer [log in to unmask]
> First Thus
> First Thus Facebook Page
> Personal Facebook Page
> Google+
> Cooperative Cataloging Rules
> Cataloging Matters Podcasts
> The Library Herald
> [delay +30 days]

Joy Nelson
Director of Migrations

ByWater Solutions <>
Support and Consulting for Open Source Software
Office: Fort Worth, TX
Phone/Fax (888)900-8944
What is Koha? <>