Talk:Resource Description Framework

message: Per Avoid self-references, should this article really link to an RDF dump of Wikipedia's contents (under the "RDF Files" section)? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an example of self-reference, but much milder than the examples given in Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Its removal would not detract much. If you feel bothered by it, remove it. cygri 20:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing it. However, Example 2 is more serious self-reference problem and should be removed if someone can write a good second example (I don't have the technical knowledge of RDF to do it); the first simple one is not enough. However, there is a world of examples to choose from, which makes a WP article a particularly poor choice. One reason for the Wikipedia:Avoid self-references policy is that it makes WP look amateurish and therefore less authoritative. EB doesn't do it in the many articles where it could use itself as an example. Finell (Talk) 21:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there an external reference that uses Wikipedia as RDF somehow? Drf5n 15:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-reference 

message: I added a link to planetrdf.com since that site really is the hub of all RDF-related development. Subsequent edit took it out citing policy against linking to blogs. I'd contest that - planetrdf.com is an aggregator for RDF-related news and is central to the RDF community. Omitting it seems detrimental to this article. – Ian Davis
:The site was described as a blog aggregator, and per Wikipedia:External links blogs are normally to be avoided. If you feel that this link is important, I won't oppose you adding it again, but I would appreciate it if you would explain here in some detail how it is important to the article. That would also help if somepne else comes along and also sees that it is a blog. -- Donald Albury 01:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here comes someone else in support of Ian, and re-insertion of the link to Planet RDF. RDF community is a reality, and Planet RDF is a hub for this community. I understand why links to blogs should generally be avoided (they often provide non-neutral, biased or extreme viewpoints), but since Planet RDF is aggregating many blogs, this makes for multiplicity of viewpoints. universimmedia 07:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Disclosure: Ian Davis, universimmedia, and me are all syndicated at Planet RDF.) Is a blog search engine a blog? No. Neither is a blog aggregator. The link should be in the article. Planet RDF is the most substantial source of RDF-related news and includes almost all of the important voices of the RDF community, including several members of the W3C's working groups that have developed RDF. The policy cited above explicitly does not apply to sources “written by a recognized authority”. Since Planet RDF is an aggregator of more than 50 sources, it is very different in nature from a single-author blog, and I do not see how the cited policy applies. (I leave it to someone else to re-add the link because of the obvious conflict of interest.) cygri 20:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet RDF 

message: The article should discuss the difference between the RDF data model (a.k.a RDF Abstract Syntax) and the RDF/XML syntax. As it stands, the article mostly discusses the data model, but the file format infobox refers to the RDF/XML syntax, and the term RDF/XML is used throughout the article without the necessary introduction. cygri 09:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RDF data model vs. RDF/XML syntax 

message: RDF does not allow literals to occur in subject position. Therefore the very first example of this article stating that "the sky" is blue cannot be expressed in this way. Instead one would have to associate a URI with the concept "sky". I don't want to mess up the introduction, but this should be corrected. Brezenbene 16:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://dbpedia.org/resource/Sky seems like a pretty good URI for the concept of the sky.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Literals in subject position

message: I added a Notes section to gather footnotes and moved the W3C links into the references section.
StephenReed 17:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Added Notes and rearranged references

message: Another article claimed that Microsoft contributed to the initial development, but no reference was cited.  Is this true? -- Beland (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft 

message: In this section I can read: "Some uses of RDF include research into social networking. This is important because it could help governments keep track of terrorists cells."
Come on!! Seriously?! I'm trying to picture in my mind the Secretary of Defense urging to define a new URI for terrosists, so that they can uniquely described by an URI. Should a terrorist be a FOAF of rather an EOAF (Enemy Of A Friend)? But I think terrorists have friends too, so they might as well be described with FOAF...
Let's write something more verifiable, or in any case more suited to the scope on encyclopedia. Either put a valid reference (but i doubt you can find anybody in the world fighting terrorism by using RDF) or just delete this last sentence.
Squalho (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applications 

message: I am reading the article and there seem to be some POV opinionated opinions creeping in: "This is important because it could help governments keep track of undesirables." Is it important that it is done with RDF? Is it an opinion that this is what governments will use it for? I find that a highly debatable statement. There are a few other instances of POV creep, and one can tell that this is a pretty "pro-RDF" document.
The article also seems to heavily fall afoul of the Wikipedia is not a Manual policy.
What do others think? --Petercorless (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some POV and "textbook" talk in the article? 

message: This article has no mention or link of HTML pages as resources.
The ongoing changes to HTML5 have removed (or broken ?) a good deal of what was available prior to HTML5 if the current state of invalid Dublin Core is any indication.
Are HTML resources, in fact, such a negligible part of the semantic web or are we seeing the bias of institutional users of web services?
G. Robert Shiplett 00:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTML5, RDFa, RDF-Lite and RDF 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Resource Description Framework. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www13.w3.org/RDF/Overview.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-203893.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Readers of this page may be interested in thw following discussion:
* Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing#DOCTYPE Puzzle
--Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOCTYPE Puzzle