Talk:Knowledge retrieval

Systems Low‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Cognitive science (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles

On first sight this article needs drastic editing and the material left merged into Knowledge Management. For example:

There are too many broad statements which sound more like marketing material
The acceptance of the DIKW strucuture is controversial
All the methods and tools described are computer based presenting information in some form or another
There is no citation to justify the title or that knowledge retrieval is a discipline in its own right rather than just an ordinary form of words to describe one use of technology

--Snowded (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have made some heavy edits to move this from an enthusiastic marketing of the ideas from one paper into something more general. I am still not sure it justifies an article in its own right, but the table is interesting. Still needs a LOT of work --Snowded (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the comments and changes you have made. I think there have been some papers titled in "Knowledge Retrieval" and wanted to discuss knowledge retrieval in its own right. Hence, may be it is time that we look into it in its own right. And, as the materials you added, it does have something that DR and IR don't bring us.

Actually Yes, the text involves retrieving information, and that is why I wanted to use the DIKW hierarchy to explain why knowledge retrieval should be studied based on what people have done for IR. Since you think it is not well accepted, I should respect your idea.

Hence, I may suggest that more researchers and practitioners should investigate the problem of retrieval from the knowledge perspective. I think more comments and suggestions from others and other fields will make it worthy of an article. Again, thank you for all the comments.--Yzeng (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2008 (GMT+8)

Too abstract

I find it impossible to say that I understand what KR is based on this article. It gives no examples, either of queries, responses, or existing commercial or research systems. Perhaps it should be put out of its misery? Lfstevens (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First allow me to say this is Wiki, second allow me to point out that not even ISBN is current for more than a day. There is a suggestion about merging. Discovery may well follow the scientific method, storage and retrieval are each different and different from discovery albeit both may follow a scientific method. NO quest that I know of has no misery, let us be patient, this could be the most profound concept in need of illumination yet trod onto. Volunters are volunters with limited resources: time, treasure or talent in one combination or another: again patience, please. BobV01 (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Knowledge extraction

Hi, I tried to merge it with Knowledge extraction but I was not sure, what the article is really about. The definitions are hardly understandable. I thought about copying the table in Comparison of Data, Information and Knowledge Retrieval, but it was really fuzzy and needs a major revision. How can I announce this article for deletion? SebastianHellmann (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag to merge with knowledge discovery since that article was just merged with knowledge extraction. I just removed the tag on this article since the merger request article no longer exists. WTF? (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]