deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_Future_Potential_Currently_knowledge__.tex b/section_Future_Potential_Currently_knowledge__.tex  index a3819a2..aa7f1f9 100644  --- a/section_Future_Potential_Currently_knowledge__.tex  +++ b/section_Future_Potential_Currently_knowledge__.tex 
...
\section{Future Potential}  Currently, In the literature  knowledge graphs are not usually (usually)  distinguished fromwhat we refer to as  ``bare statement'' graphs, in that they do not encode or publish the epistemology (why \footnote{em{Epistemology} defines why  something is known) known}  ofthe  knowledge asserted  in the graph. This is We see this as  troubling because it does not privilege knowledge \em{privilege} knowledge:  in most existing  knowledge graphs.  Unsupported graphs supported and unsupported  assertions are given equal weight in current knowledge graphs.  Instead, weight.  Moving forward,  there is an opportunity to leverage existing vocabularies, like including  the Provenance Ontology (PROV-O) \cite{Moreau_2015}, and the nanopublications framework \cite{groth2010anatomy}. Nanopublications Framework \cite{groth2010anatomy}, to improve the clarity and utility of knowledge graphs.  A nanopublication is a set of RDF graphs: an assertion graph \em{assertion graph}  (the knowledge), a provenance graph \em{provenance graph}  (the justification), and an attribution graph \em{attribution graph}  (the believer). While justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge, most other proposals, such as including  a causal linkage between the justification, assertion, and believer, are well supported well-supported  within provenance vocabularies. The Added to a knowledge graph, the  provenance graph canthen  expand to provide room for whatever epistemic criteria is desired. There is an interesting overlap between what is considered a ``knowledge graph'' and what is an ontology.  The most commonly accepted definition of an ontology is a ``an explicit specification of a conceptualization'' \cite{Gruber_1993}.