What is a Knowledge Graph?
December 31, 2024
Overview
A knowledge graph is a way of organizing and connecting data that emphasizes relationships and context. Instead of storing data in disconnected tables or documents, knowledge graphs link entities—people, places, products, concepts—into a graph structure. Each entity is represented as a node, and the connections or associations between entities are represented as edges. These relationships are typically defined by an underlying ontology or schema that gives meaning and consistency to how the data is structured.
By linking data in a semantically rich way, knowledge graphs help answer complex questions, power search and recommendation systems, and enable organizations to better integrate and analyze information from diverse sources. Their growing popularity stems from the clear need to move beyond isolated data silos and towards a connected, contextual understanding of information.
In short, a knowledge graph is a graph that also has an ontology.
Table of Contents
Core Components
-
Nodes (Entities): These represent the "things" in your domain, such as people, organizations, locations, or abstract concepts.
-
Edges (Relationships): Edges capture how entities relate to one another. For example, a
Personnode might have anemployed byrelationship to aCompanynode, or aDiseasemightaffectaSpecies. -
Ontology or Schema: An ontology defines the vocabulary (classes and properties) and rules for how these entities and relationships should be structured. It dictates, for example, that a
Personhas certain properties like name or date of birth and can have certain valid relationship types. -
Metadata and Context: Knowledge graphs often include metadata such as timestamps, provenance (where data came from), or confidence scores for inferred connections. This context is critical for trust, interpretability, and governance.
How Knowledge Graphs Are Built and Maintained
Data Ingestion and Integration
Data from multiple sources—relational databases, APIs, spreadsheets, or unstructured text—is cleansed and transformed into a graph format. Consistent identifiers for entities must be used to avoid duplication.
Entity Resolution and Disambiguation
A crucial step is ensuring that the same entity from different sources is recognized and merged correctly (e.g. "John Smith at ACME Inc." vs. "Jonathan Smith, ACME").
Data Model: Property Graph vs RDF
One of the first choices in building a knowledge graph is deciding its data model. Property Graphs (like Neo4j) tend to be more "schema-less" or have an implicit schema, making them highly flexible for evolving data models. RDF, on the other hand, is backed by a well-defined semantic framework (RDFS/OWL) that can provide richer inference capabilities, but that often comes with more explicit modeling constraints ("stricter schemas").
| RDF | Property Graph | |
|---|---|---|
| Standardization | Strong W3C standards (RDF, RDFS, OWL, SPARQL) | No single global standard; several popular query languages (Cypher, Gremlin, GSQL) |
| Modeling Approach | Subject–predicate–object triples, URIs for unique identification | Nodes and edges with key-value properties; optional labels for class-like semantics |
| Ontology/Reasoning | Built-in via RDFS/OWL; strong inference capabilities | Typically requires custom logic layers; no universal ontology standard |
| Query Language | SPARQL (standardized, expressive, but can be verbose) | Cypher or Gremlin (developer-friendly, easier to learn for SQL practitioners) |
| Ease of Adoption | Steeper learning curve (URIs, triple mindset, open-world assumption) | Often simpler to adopt; direct node-edge modeling with flexible properties |
| Interoperability | Excellent for data exchange across systems; URIs ensure global uniqueness | Less standardized across vendors; might need specialized solutions for data migration |
Tools and Technologies
| Tool / Platform | Data Model | Query Language(s) | Strengths | Considerations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neo4j | Property Graph | Cypher | Mature ecosystem; user-friendly tooling & visual. | Semantic reasoning not native (would need add-ons). |
| Apache Jena | RDF | SPARQL | Strong semantic web support, open source. | Higher learning curve for RDF/OWL. |
| Stardog | RDF | SPARQL, Stardog rules | Advanced reasoning, virtual graph capabilities. | Commercial product; licensing costs. |
| Amazon Neptune | RDF, Property Graph | SPARQL, Gremlin | Supports both models; integrates with AWS stack. | Cloud-based; ecosystem depends on AWS. |
| TigerGraph | Property Graph | GSQL | Built for large-scale analytics, high performance. | Less focus on ontologies or semantic reasoning. |
| GraphDB (Ontotext) | RDF | SPARQL | Scalable triplestore with reasoning. | Commercial license for enterprise features. |
| Blazegraph | RDF | SPARQL | Open source, large community. | Less active development since acquired. |
| TinkerPop/Gremlin | Property Graph | Gremlin (traversal-based) | Open source, vendor-neutral framework. | Steeper query language learning curve. |
Ontology Design
Teams define classes and relationships that reflect the business domain. A well-structured ontology helps maintain consistency as the graph grows.
Maintenance
Knowledge graphs evolve continuously as data changes. Ongoing governance is needed to validate new data against the ontology, resolve conflicts, and ensure data quality.
Use Cases
-
Search and Recommendation: Many major search engines leverage knowledge graphs to provide better query understanding, entity disambiguation, and personalized recommendations.
-
Healthcare and Life Sciences: Hospitals and research labs create knowledge graphs linking genes, proteins, diseases, and treatment outcomes. These graphs can accelerate discovery and precision medicine.
-
Conversational AI: Intelligent chatbots use knowledge graphs to handle complex queries. By understanding entities and relationships, they provide context-aware responses.
Common Challenges
-
Data Quality and Consistency: A knowledge graph is only as good as the data it encodes. Inconsistent or incomplete data can undermine its effectiveness.
-
Scalability: Large graphs (with billions of nodes and edges) require specialized storage, indexing, and querying techniques.
-
Governance: Controlling user access, tracking changes, and versioning the ontology are non-trivial tasks, especially in large organizations.
-
Complex Modeling: Overly detailed ontologies can become hard to maintain. Striking the right balance between detail and simplicity is key.
Logical Constraints in Ontologies
Ontologies aren’t just about naming classes and relationships; they can also embed logic. Formal languages like OWL (Web Ontology Language) allow for constraints such as: cardinality constraints ("each Car must have at least four hasWheel relationships," or "a Person can have at most one birthPlace property").
Advanced Logic and Rules
Advanced ontologies can incorporate reasoning about class membership or property constraints. For instance, you might express:
"A Course is Advanced if it has at least three prerequisites from a predefined set {P1, P2, P3, P4, P5}."
This specific "3 out of 5" constraint might require rule extensions (e.g. SWRL—Semantic Web Rule Language) or a constraint language like SHACL (Shapes Constraint Language).
In real-world scenarios, teams often keep complex business rules in a separate layer (e.g. a rule engine), with the ontology handling the broader semantic structure.
Open-World Assumption
In many knowledge-graph implementations, knowledge is assumed to be incomplete. This means reasoners won’t necessarily conclude something is false just because it isn’t stated.
Conclusion
Knowledge graphs represent a powerful approach to handling interconnected data. They merge information from different sources, add structure via ontologies, and allow for complex reasoning and queries. Their roots in the Semantic Web have spread to nearly every industry, bringing big benefits like more accurate search results, better data integration, and context-aware AI.