Static vs Dynamic Schemas

A schema can be treated as fixed infrastructure or as something that evolves alongside the knowledge it organizes.

Static schemas function as rigid templates. The ontology is defined upfront, and extraction populates it under strict structural supervision. This achieves high consistency but limited flexibility. The schema guides extraction; extraction doesn’t change the schema.

Dynamic schemas treat structure as emergent. The schema co-evolves with extraction, adapting to accommodate novel relations and entity types without requiring redesign. The schema is less a blueprint and more a living summary of what’s been learned.

The shift from static to dynamic schemas reflects a broader pattern: moving from “design it right the first time” to “let it adapt as understanding grows.” This trades some precision for resilience in the face of changing domains and incomplete initial knowledge.

Dynamic schemas are harder to reason about and validate. But they’re more honest about the reality that our understanding of a domain is never complete when we start building.

Related: 06-atom—schema-based-vs-schema-free-extraction, 06-atom—three-bottlenecks-kg-construction