Knowledge Graphs - Containers for Knowledge or Knowledge itself?

A debate emerged on LinkedIn regarding the relationship between knowledge graphs (KGs) and knowledge itself. Are KGs accurate representations of institutional knowledge, or merely structures containing knowledge?

One viewpoint was that KGs, while useful system tools, should not be conflated with the deeper insights they aim to organize. Like wine bottles are vessels - but not the wine itself. There is a risk of losing qualitative nuances of "true" knowledge through reliance solely on technical logic frameworks.  

The counterargument made was that KGs capture explicit knowledge - concepts, rules, structured documentation of policies and processes. While intrinsic gut-feel expertise can't be fully codified, experts can increasingly document mental models and troubleshooting heuristics in ways that transfer knowledge from implicit realms into explicit, system-friendly formats. 

Documenting troubleshooting sequences, mapping relationships between scenarios and solutions, detailing institutional policies - externalizing these turns individual experiences into accessible data. Expanding organizational knowledge graphs with such converted content, while incremental, helps scale circulation of meaningful information.

So perhaps the dichotomy is less absolute - KGs may not wholly represent implicit understandings, but through consistent externalization of such by teams, knowledge graphs can continue maturing as all-encompassing reservoirs of corporate insight, wisdom and memory.

The debate around knowledge digitization continues. But deliberate documentation initiatives sustain positive transformations of personal experience into accessible, actionable data.

Let me know if this captures the essence of our discussion. I can modify perspectives or terminology as needed. Would be great to build on the dialogue through this post!