Print

Print


James, it’s not “ripped off” from Wikipedia. Wikipedia deliberately structured their content so that others can make use of it in precisely this way.

What astonishes me is that other content providers haven’t done the same. The Knowledge Graph is like free advertising for your content.




On 2/25/16, 3:33 AM, "Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum on behalf of James Weinheimer" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [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:
>>
>> https://developers.google.com/knowledge-graph/
>>
>> Search results link to a full page description as opposed to the "card" they present in their regular search results. For example:
>>
>> http://g.co/kg/m/0dl567
>>
>> 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, 
>http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3A%22swift+taylor%22&&dblist=638&fq=, 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, 
>https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2007053238/ 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 http://blog.jweinheimer.net
>First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
>Personal Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/james.weinheimer.35
>Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JamesWeinheimer
>Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
>Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts
>The Library Herald http://libnews.jweinheimer.net/
>
>[delay +30 days]