Creation of the entity: "Religion"

What do you think about the creation of the entity: “Religion”? it is associated with the entity “Person”, “Organization”, for example, a religious organization. Also associated with country or location. The entity “Religion” is important because it will help determine the direction of the company’s development or the decisions made by a person.

What is this entity?: Religion
Add a new field to the entity:

Religion: Bahá’í; Buddhism; Taoism; Christianity; Judaism; Hinduism; Mythology; Shintoism; Islam.

Subcategories of religion:
1.1 Kabbalah
2.1 Orthodoxy
2.2 Protestantism
2.3. Catholicism
3. Islam
4. Baha’i Faith
5.2Tibetan Buddhism
6. Jainism
8. Taoism

@lavvpix I would think that a predicate related to religion would likely be restricted to religious organizations (which you mention as your first example). I am not sure how we could define religion for a company, country, or location. ie, a country might have percentage breakdowns of religions but not assigned a religion as a whole. But I may be misunderstanding the suggestion.

1 Like

I agree with @jen that we shouldn’t assign religion to a country or location. It would be useful for organizations (i.e. religion is a big part of the identity of some charities and universities) or even people (e.g. popes). Complexity here would surround defining the term “Religion” and that there are an incredible amount of them that exist.

1 Like

I agree, this entity is complex, since indeed countries can have a percentage of all faiths. For churches, mosques and others, this will be the defining entity. But if the Golden project is a knowledge graph, and not just business cards, then this should be separated into a separate entity. If all such Golden development is for commercial gain and to show the relationship between organizations, then a separate entity “Religion” is not needed.

1 Like

@lavvpix @Kat @jen

What do you think of the “gender” predicate? Facebook added more than 50 different genders at one time. Will such a predicate be appropriate in Golden for “persons”.

Rather, it is a self-determination of a person, in each individual case, since users are international, this can be misleading. But in the future it is probably possible when it will carry value.

Are you talking about a predicate for religion, or entities for these religions?

If you’re talking about entities, we probably have some or many of these already on, like:

If you’re talking about a predicate, it feels like this would apply more often to a Person, but also that not very many people are particularly public about their religion? (And Golden requires public data/citations for triples.)

I take your point about religious organizations, but aren’t many/most of those organizations best described as subsidiaries of explicitly religious organizations? I worry that people could see a news article or opinion piece that claims to link a particular organization to a religion - and that wouldn’t be true and thus bad data would get into the graph.


Yes, most likely you are right.

What if it were used as a predicate for a person, to index and categorize a particular group of people. For example: religious/non-religious without reference to a particular denomination. The basis for citations are social networks, personal pages, etc. Perhaps such an indexing would really be relevant in a commercial query!