Great question! From "The Analysis of Knowledge" by Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa and Matthias Steup, published over at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
For any person, there are some things they know, and some things they don’t. What exactly is the difference? What does it take to know something? It’s not enough just to believe it—we don’t know the things we’re wrong about. Knowledge seems to be more like a way of getting at the truth. The analysis of knowledge concerns the attempt to articulate in what exactly this kind of “getting at the truth” consists.
The attempt to analyze knowledge has received a considerable amount of attention from epistemologists, particularly in the late 20th Century, but no analysis has been widely accepted.
(article continues for 26 pages)
Any philosopher who might have mentioned his/her thoughts about it?
The linked article above was written in 2017 by Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa and Matthias Steup.
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa is a young philosopher who studies and teaches philosophy of language (as well as epistemology and philosophy of mind), at University of British Columbia in Vancouver. He once told me that his job was to think about knowledge.
Matthias Steup works in epistemology and other philosophical fields over at University of Colorado in Boulder. According to his personnel webpage at UC Boulder:
He works primarily in epistemology, particular on skepticism, perceptual justification, and the question of whether we have control over our beliefs.
Good luck in pursuing philosophy! I hope you find it satisfying!
I'll add this edit to your post in hopes others may more fully understand what you're saying.
One of the best ways in philosophy to explain something, is through language, so lets do some etymology:
We have 2 closed form compound words, ontology and epistemology, made of 3 words of greek origin. They are ontos, epistimi and logos. We also have epistimi, which is again a closed form compound word. So, lets brake them down shall we:
Ontos: ὄντως meaning indeed, for sure, really, truly, being/existing, important.
Epistimi: ἐπιστήμη, deriving from the word epistamai ἐπίσταμαι, made of 2 words, epi (above, over) and sta/sto/sti (to stand, to be locative, to position oneself). Joining these 2 words gives the meaning 'to stand over, to be on top, to position oneself above' and that's how you get to the more complex understanding of the word as 'science'. The word epistimi and gnosis, in ancient greek both can mean knowledge but with a big difference, epistimi being intellectual in nature.
Logos: λόγος meaning (ground, meating place, place to stand, word, speech, opinion, discourse)
Now to put them together again:
Epistimi - logos, to have standing opinion, in a discourse with words, by prolonged exposure/ acquaintance with an idea/phenomena, proven by intellectual methods.
Ontos - logos, to have standing opinion, in a discourse with words on the being, the indeed, the true, the real, the existent and therefore on the opposite of these.
In my opinion it is pretty clear that the words are self explanatory. Hope this helps others to understand to your post.