Found 2598 bookmarks
Custom sorting
Confession: until last week, I thought graphs were new
Confession: until last week, I thought graphs were new
Confession: until last week, I thought graphs were new. I shared what I thought was a fresh idea: that enterprise structured data should be modeled as a graph to make it digestible for today’s AI with its short context windows and text-based architecture. My post attracted graph leaders with roots in the Semantic Web. I learned that ontology was the big idea when the Semantic Web launched in 2001, and fell out of fashion by 2008. Then Google brought it back in 2012 —rebranded as the “knowledge graph” - and graphs became a mainstay in SEO. We’re living through the third wave of graphs, now driven by the need to feed data to AI agents. Graphs are indeed not new. But there’s no way I - or most enterprise data leaders of my generation - would have known that. I started my data career in 2013 - peak love for data lakes and disregard for schemas. I haven't met a single ontologist until 3 months ago (hi Madonnalisa C.!). And I deal with tables in the enterprise domain, not documents in public domain. These are two different worlds. Or are they?.. This 1999 quote from Tim Berners-Lee, the father of the Semantic Web hit me: “I have a dream for the Web [in which computers] become capable of analyzing all the data... When it [emerges], the day-to-day mechanisms of trade, bureaucracy, and our daily lives will be handled by machines talking to machines... The ‘intelligent agents’... will finally materialize.” We don't talk about this enough - but we are all one: ➡️ Semantic Web folks ➡️ Enterprise data teams ➡️ SEO and content teams ➡️ data providers like Scale AI and Surge AI In the grand scheme of things, we are all just feeding data into computers hoping to realize Tim’s dream. That’s when my initial shame turned into wonder. What if we all reimagined our jobs by learning from each other? What if enterprise data teams: ▶️ Prioritized algorithmic discoverability of their data assets, like SEOs do? ▶️ Pursued missing data that improves AI outcomes, like Scale AI does? ▶️ Took ownership of all data—not just the tables? Would we be the generation that finally realizes the dream? What a time to be alive. | 10 comments on LinkedIn
Confession: until last week, I thought graphs were new
·linkedin.com·
Confession: until last week, I thought graphs were new
Into the Heart of a UX-driven Knowledge Graph | LinkedIn
Into the Heart of a UX-driven Knowledge Graph | LinkedIn
How is fitness related to a bench? What is suitable for small spaces and can fit by both a sofa and a bed, serving as table but also being flexible to function as a bedside table? And what is a relevant product to complement a bed? Imagine all these questions answered by a furniture website. In one
·linkedin.com·
Into the Heart of a UX-driven Knowledge Graph | LinkedIn
Unlocking Transparency: Semantics in Ride-Hailing for Consumers | LinkedIn
Unlocking Transparency: Semantics in Ride-Hailing for Consumers | LinkedIn
by Timothy Coleman A recent Guardian report drew attention to a key issue in the ride-hailing industry, spotlighting Uber’s use of sophisticated algorithms to enhance profits while prompting questions about clarity for drivers and passengers. Studies from Columbia Business School and the University
·linkedin.com·
Unlocking Transparency: Semantics in Ride-Hailing for Consumers | LinkedIn
what is a semantic layer?
what is a semantic layer?
There’s a lot of buzz about #semanticlayers on LinkedIn these days. So what is a semantic layer? According to AtScale, “The semantic layer is a metadata and abstraction layer built on the source data (eg.. data warehouse, data lake, or data mart). The metadata is defined so that the data model gets enriched and becomes simple enough for the business user to understand.” It’s a metadata layer. Which can be taken a step further. A metadata layer is best implemented using metadata standards that support interoperability and extensibility. There are open standards such as Dublin Core Metadata Initiative and there are home-grown standards, established within organizations and domains. If you want to design and build semantic layers, build from metadata standards or build a metadata standard, according to #FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable). Some interesting and BRILLIANT ✨folks to check out in the metadata domain space: Ole Olesen-Bagneux (O2)’s (check out his upcoming book about the #metagrid) Lisa N. Cao Robin Fay Jenna Jordan Larry Swanson Resources in comments 👇👇👇 | 29 comments on LinkedIn
what is a semantic layer?
·linkedin.com·
what is a semantic layer?
The Question That Changes Everything: "But This Doesn't Look Like an Ontology" | LinkedIn
The Question That Changes Everything: "But This Doesn't Look Like an Ontology" | LinkedIn
After publishing my article on the Missing Semantic Center, a brilliant colleague asked me a question that gets to the heart of our technology stack: "But Tavi - this doesn't look like an OWL 2 DL ontology. What's going on here?" This question highlights a profound aspect of why systems have struggl
·linkedin.com·
The Question That Changes Everything: "But This Doesn't Look Like an Ontology" | LinkedIn
When Is an Ontological Approach Not the Right Fit for Sharing and Reusing System Knowledge in Design and Development?
When Is an Ontological Approach Not the Right Fit for Sharing and Reusing System Knowledge in Design and Development?
🧠 When Is an Ontological Approach Not the Right Fit for Sharing and Reusing System Knowledge in Design and Development? Ontologies promise knowledge integration, traceability, reuse, and machine reasoning across the full engineering system lifecycle. From functional models to field failures, ontologies offer a way to encode and connect it all. 💥 However, ontologies are not a silver bullet. There are plenty of scenarios where an ontology is not just unnecessary, it might actually slow you down, confuse your team, or waste resources. So when exactly does the ontological approach become more burden than benefit? Based on my understanding and current work in this space, 🚀 For engineering design, it's important to recognise situations where adopting a semantic model is not the most effective approach: 1. When tasks are highly localised and routine If you're just tweaking part drawings, running standard FEA simulations, or updating well-established design details, then the knowledge already lives in your tools and practices. Adding an ontology might feel like installing a satellite dish to tune a local radio station. 2. When terminology is unstable or fragmented Ontologies depend on consistent language. If every department speaks its own dialect, and no one agrees on terms, you can't build shared meaning. You’ll end up formalising confusion instead of clarifying it. 3. When speed matters more than structure In prototyping labs, testing grounds, or urgent production lines, agility rules. Engineers solve problems fast, often through direct collaboration. Taking time to define formal semantics? Not always practical. Sometimes the best model is a whiteboard and a sharp marker. 4. When the knowledge won’t be reused Not all projects aim for longevity or cross-team learning. If you're building something once, for one purpose, with no intention of scaling or sharing, skip the ontology. It’s like building a library catalog for a single book. 5. When the infrastructure isn't there Ontological engineering isn’t magic. It needs tools, training, and people who understand the stack. If your team lacks the skills or platforms, even the best-designed ontology will gather dust in a forgotten folder. Use the Right Tool for the Real Problem Ontologies are powerful, but not sacred. They shine when you need to connect knowledge across domains, ensure long-term traceability, or enable intelligent automation. But they’re not a requirement for every task just because they’re clever. The real challenge is not whether to use ontologies, but knowing when they genuinely improve clarity, consistency, and collaboration, and when they just complicate the obvious. 🧠 Feedback and critique are welcome; this is a living conversation. Felician Campean #KnowledgeManagement #SystemsEngineering #Ontology #MBSE #DigitalEngineering #RiskAnalysis #AIinEngineering #OntologyEngineering #SemanticInteroperability #SystemReliability #FailureAnalysis #KnowledgeIntegration | 11 comments on LinkedIn
When Is an Ontological Approach Not the Right Fit for Sharing and Reusing System Knowledge in Design and Development?
·linkedin.com·
When Is an Ontological Approach Not the Right Fit for Sharing and Reusing System Knowledge in Design and Development?
Foundation Models Know Enough
Foundation Models Know Enough
LLMs already contain overlapping world models. You just have to ask them right. Ontologists reply to an LLM output, “That’s not a real ontology—it’s not a formal conceptualization.” But that’s just the No True Scotsman fallacy dressed up in OWL. Boring. Not growth-oriented. Look forward, angel. A foundation model is a compression of human knowledge. The real problem isn't that we "lack a conceptualization". The real problem with an FM is that they contain too many. FMs contain conceptualizations—plural. Messy? Sure. But usable. At Stardog, we’re turning this latent structure into real ontologies using symbolic knowledge distillation. Prompt orchestration → structure extraction → formal encoding. OWL, SHACL, and friends. Shake till mixed. Rinse. Repeat. Secret sauce simmered and reduced. This isn't theoretical hard. We avoid that. It’s merely engineering hard. We LTF into that! But the payoff means bootstrapping rich, new ontologies at scale: faster, cheaper, with lineage. It's the intersection of FM latent space, formal ontology, and user intent expressed via CQs. We call it the Symbolic Latent Layer (SLL). Cute eh? The future of enterprise AI isn’t just documents. It’s distilling structured symbolic knowledge from LLMs and plugging it into agents, workflows, and reasoning engines. You don’t need a priesthood to get a formal ontology anymore. You need a good prompt and a smarter pipeline and the right EKG platform. There's a lot more to say about this so I said it at Stardog Labs https://lnkd.in/eY5Sibed | 17 comments on LinkedIn
·linkedin.com·
Foundation Models Know Enough
Graph is the new star schema. Change my mind.
Graph is the new star schema. Change my mind.
Graph is the new star schema. Change my mind. Why? Your agents can't be autonomous unless your structured data is a graph. It is really very simple. 1️⃣ To act autonomously, an agent must reason across structured data. Every autonomous decision - human or agent - hinges on a judgment: have I done enough? “Enough" boils down to driving the probability of success over some threshold. 2️⃣ You can’t just point the agent at your structured data store. Context windows are too small. Schema sprawl is too real. If you think it works, you probably haven’t tried it. 3️⃣ Agent must first retrieve - with RAG - the right tables, columns, and snippets. Decision making is a retrieval problem before it’s a reasoning problem. 4️⃣ Standard RAG breaks on enterprise metadata. The corpus is too entity-rich. Semantic similarity is breaking on enterprise help articles - it won't perform on column descriptions. 5️⃣ To make structured RAG work, you need a graph. Just like unstructured RAG needed links between articles, structured RAG needs links between tables, fields, and - most importantly - meaning. Yes, graphs are painful. But so was deep learning—until the return was undeniable. Agents need reasoning over structured data. That makes graphs non-optional. The rest is just engineering. Let’s stop modeling for reporting—and start modeling for autonomy. | 28 comments on LinkedIn
Graph is the new star schema. Change my mind.
·linkedin.com·
Graph is the new star schema. Change my mind.
How can you turn business questions into production-ready agentic knowledge graphs?
How can you turn business questions into production-ready agentic knowledge graphs?
❓ How can you turn business questions into production-ready agentic knowledge graphs? Join Prashanth Rao and Dennis Irorere at the Agentic AI Summit to find out. Prashanth is an AI Engineer and DevRel lead at Kùzu Inc.—the open-source graph database startup—where he blends NLP, ML, and data engineering to power agentic workflows. Dennis is a Data Engineer at Tripadvisor’s Viator Marketing Technology team and Director of Innovation at GraphGeeks, driving scalable, AI-driven graph solutions for customer growth. In “Agentic Workflows for Graph RAG: Building Production-Ready Knowledge Graphs,” they’ll guide you through three hands-on lessons: 🔹 From Business Question to Graph Schema – Modeling your domain for downstream agents and LLMs, using live data sources like AskNews. 🔹 From Unstructured Data to Agent-Ready Graphs with BAML – Writing declarative pipelines that reliably extract entities and relationships at scale. 🔹 Agentic Graph RAG in Action – Completing the loop: translating NL queries into Cypher, retrieving graph data, and synthesizing responses—with fallback strategies when matches are missing. If you’re building internal tools or public-facing AI agents that rely on knowledge graphs, this workshop is for you. 🗓️ Learn more & register free: https://hubs.li/Q03qHnpQ0 #AgenticAI #GraphRAG #KnowledgeGraphs #AgentWorkflows #AIEngineering #ODSC #Kuzu #Tripadvisor
How can you turn business questions into production-ready agentic knowledge graphs?
·linkedin.com·
How can you turn business questions into production-ready agentic knowledge graphs?
The Developer's Guide to GraphRAG
The Developer's Guide to GraphRAG
Find out how to combine a knowledge graph with RAG for GraphRAG. Provide more complete GenAI outputs.
You’ve built a RAG system and grounded it in your own data. Then you ask a complex question that needs to draw from multiple sources. Your heart sinks when the answers you get are vague or plain wrong.   How could this happen? Traditional vector-only RAG bases its outputs on just the words you use in your prompt. It misses out on valuable context because it pulls from different documents and data structures. Basically, it misses out on the bigger, more connected picture. Your AI needs a mental model of your data with all its context and nuances. A knowledge graph provides just that by mapping your data as connected entities and relationships. Pair it with RAG to create a GraphRAG architecture to feed your LLM information about dependencies, sequences, hierarchies, and deeper meaning. Check out The Developer’s Guide to GraphRAG. You’ll learn how to: Prepare a knowledge graph for GraphRAG Combine a knowledge graph with native vector search Implement three GraphRAG retrieval patterns
·neo4j.com·
The Developer's Guide to GraphRAG
Add a Semantic Layer – a smart translator that sits between your data sources and your business applications
Add a Semantic Layer – a smart translator that sits between your data sources and your business applications
Tired of being told that silos are gone? The real value comes from connecting them. 🔄 The myth of data silos: why they never really disappear, and how to turn them into your biggest advantage. Even after heavy IT investment, data silos never truly go away, they simply evolve. In food production, I saw this first-hand: every system (ERP, quality, IoT, POS) stored data in its own format. Sometimes, the same product ended up with different IDs across systems, batch information was fragmented, and data was dispersed in each silo. People often say, “Break down the silos.” But in reality, that’s nearly impossible. Businesses change, new tools appear, acquisitions happen, teams shift, new processes and production lines are launched. Silos are part of digital life. For years, I tried classic integrations. They helped a bit, but every change in one system caused more issues and even more integration work. I wish I had known then what I know now: Stop trying to destroy silos. Start connecting them. Here’s what makes the difference: Add a Semantic Layer – a smart translator that sits between your data sources and your business applications. It maps different formats and names into a common language, without changing your original systems. Put a Knowledge Graph on top and you don’t just translate – you connect. Suddenly, all your data sources, even legacy silos, become part of a single network. Products, ingredients, machines, partners, and customers are all logically linked and understood across your business. In practice, this means: - Production uses real sales and shelf-life data. - Sales sees live inventory, not outdated reports. - Forecasting is based on trustworthy, aligned data. That’s the real shift: Silos are not problems to kill, but assets to connect. With a Semantic Layer and a Knowledge Graph, data silos become trusted building blocks for your business intelligence. Better Data, Better ROI. If you’ve ever spent hours reconciling reports, you’ll recognise this recurring pain in companies that haven’t optimised their data integration with a semantic and KG approach. So: Do you still treat silos as problems, or could they be your next competitive advantage if you connect them the right way? Meaningfy #DataSilos #SemanticLayer #KnowledgeGraph #BusinessData #DigitalTransformation
Add a Semantic Layer – a smart translator that sits between your data sources and your business applications
·linkedin.com·
Add a Semantic Layer – a smart translator that sits between your data sources and your business applications
Cellosaurus is now available in RDF format
Cellosaurus is now available in RDF format
Cellosaurus is now available in RDF format, with a triple store that supports SPARQL queries If this sounds a bit abstract or unfamiliar… 1) RDF stands for Resource Description Framework. Think of RDF as a way to express knowledge using triplets: Subject – Predicate – Object. Example: HeLa (subject) – is_transformed_by (predicate) – Human papillomavirus type 18 (object) These triplets are like little facts that can be connected together to form a graph of knowledge. 2) A triple store is a database designed specifically to store and retrieve these RDF triplets. Unlike traditional databases (tables, rows), triple stores are optimized for linked data. They allow you to navigate connections between biological entities, like species, tissues, genes, diseases, etc. 3) SPARQL is a query language for RDF data. It lets you ask complex questions, such as: - Find all cell lines with a *RAS (HRAS, NRAS, KRAS) mutation in p.Gly12 - Find all Cell lines from animals belonging the order "carnivora" More specifically we now offer from the Tool - API submenu 6 new options: 1) SPARQL Editor (https://lnkd.in/eF2QMsYR). The SPARQL Editor is a tool designed to assist users in developing their SPARQL queries. 2) SPARQL Service (https://lnkd.in/eZ-iN7_e). The SPARQL service is the web service that accepts SPARQL queries over HTTP and returns results from the RDF dataset. 3) Cellosaurs Ontology (https://lnkd.in/eX5ExjMe). An RDF ontology is a formal, structured representation of knowledge. It explicitly defines domain-specific concepts - such as classes and properties - enabling data to be described with meaningful semantics that both humans and machines can interpret. The Cellosaurus ontology is expressed in OWL. 4) Cellosaurus Concept Hopper (https://lnkd.in/e7CH5nj4). The Concept Hopper, is a tool that provides an alternative view of the Cellosaurus ontology. It focuses on a single concept at a time - either a class or a property - and shows how that concept is linked to others within the ontology, as well as how it appears in the data. 5) Cellosaurus dereferencing service (https://lnkd.in/eSATMhGb). The RDF dereferencing service is the mechanism that, given a URI, returns an RDF description of the resource identified by that URI, enabling clients to retrieve structured, machine-readable data about the resource from the web in different formats. 6) Cellosaurus RDF files download (https://lnkd.in/emuEYnMD). This allows you to download the Cellosaurus RDF files in Turtle (ttl) format.
Cellosaurus is now available in RDF format
·linkedin.com·
Cellosaurus is now available in RDF format