Talk:Semantic Web

message: I'd support having Rule Interchange Format merged into this article (or removed altogether?). DBpedia is significant enough to have an article on it's own. Nloth (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you oppose, please just state so rather than removing the tags. RIF certainly should be merged or redirected. The DBpedia issue is currently in AfD, which will likely decide its merge fate as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's pretty clear that DBpedia it going to get though the AfD fine. I'm don't see much support at all for merging DBpedia, and I don't see anyone else calling for any kind of debate about it. Also, your edit comment about my removal of the tag without discussion is wrong. Firstly, I did start this discussion (which is more than occurred when those tags were added) and secondly: Be Bold. I'm going to revert the removal of that tag. Nloth (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You were already bold, reverting is outside of BRD. Even if the AfD is keep, a merge discussion is still valid. Please actual read the guidelines before just removing tags. You don't get to remove the tag if you disagree. It is a call for discussion which is valid and should remain until a clear consensus is reached. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course the merge discussion is still valid - which is why I started it. You added nearly all the tags on that article without a single post of the Talk page! I believe that there is a clear consensus which you seem to be intent on ignoring for some reason. Nloth (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that consensus if there was no discussion? Articles are often tagged for merge without discussion, unless someone disagrees (as you did), then discussion occurs and others usually weigh in. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a large disucssion on Talk:DBpedia. Everyone except yourself has had their concerns satisfied. Nloth (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That discussion was about notability in general, not merging. Those are two separate issues. However, as it is clear no one is really going to discuss it, and with the large number of DBpedia supporters who would likely oppose anyway, I have removed the tag. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for removing it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:DBpedia#Merge_with_Semantic_Web was the discussion - you were involved in it, so you may have forgotten? Nloth (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rule Interchange Format]] 

message: "object-oriented programming languages[citation needed] such as Objective-C, Smalltalk and CORBA."
CORBA is a standard, not a programming language unless. Also, the first web pages was created using a multitude of techniques(dont forget about those stacks and servers), most written in non-object-oriented C.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.113.100 (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the whole second paragraph is of questionable validity and should be removed. 129.49.101.90 (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, except I would remove the third para too, for the same reason, leaving only the first paragraph in the section. The whole section is relatively spurious - there is not much relationship between OO software and semantic objects: one does not lead to the other, the purpose is different, the modelling is different and done for a different set of reasons. There was some talk in the late 90s about how we would be publishing 'objects' or 'components' or blocks of compiled Java or COM or ActiveX that would do something or other on the web. It never happened - security, interoperability, business confidentiality etc. The nearest we have now is the JavaScript that makes Ajax and some other Web 2.0 stuff happen, and it's usually something like jQuery and hardly at all 'object oriented'. And nothing at all to do with the Semantic web. Maybe the whole section should go? No, I think someone who knows what they're talking about may be able to make something of the first para, even if only to say that, e.g., you may use UML, but you use it for entirely different reasons, to achieve entirely different models. --Nigelj (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

text: See Talk:Semantic_Web/Archive_1#Relation_to_OO_.3F from 2008 as well, when this section was first added. I'd wipe the whole thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Blanked the section. It wasn't really adding much and the sources don't really make a strong statement of similarities beyond the obvious. Plus the section seems to be written by someone with a limited understanding of OOP and the sources, who came to with their own conclusions. E.g. the "programming language" claims seem to stem from a claim in one of the sources that HTTP was a distributed "implementation" of Objective-C. Averell (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Object oriented web? CORBA, a programming language??

message: I've started copyediting a bit, starting with the introduction to make it less waffly (although the term in itself is, a bit). When I have time other goals would include to make things clearer for non-geeks and integrating the critics and projects with the rest of the article. Averell (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyediting 

message: Is this labeling mechanism restricted to a single meaning per term?  It's nice that "cat" points to a lengthy definition of the furry critters... but the "dictionary" I'm playing from has 198 meanings for "cat."   Can the rdf:about tag have multiple contextual meanings?   DEddy (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semantic Web Solutions 

message: Please add a link to the Jena semantic web library for Java (http://jena.sourceforge.net/) and likewise for .NET (http://www.linkeddatatools.com/downloads), because this is an entry level page which would benefit from highlighting how IT professionals can actually use the technology in real-world applications (both of these are open source/free downloads).
It may be a prudent change to simply add an external list for other free libraries too? For example LINQ2RDF for C# .NET (code.google.com/p/linqtordf/) and the SemWeb library (http://razor.occams.info/code/semweb/).
Many thanks
Linkeddatatools (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not?  Jena is a major part of the semantic web, both as a popular toolset for building semweb apps, also for its historical position at the core of early semweb work. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jena already has its own article. WP:EL says "...a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." A wikibook could be written about how IT professionals can use SemWeb in real-world applications; *that* would make sense to link from here IMO. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Linkeddatatools, 6 September 2010 

message: Nice edits! I think this part could be further improved: "The key element is that the application in context will try to determine the meaning of the text or other data and then create connections for the user. The evolution of Semantic Web will specifically make possible scenarios that were not otherwise, such as allowing customers to share and utilize computerized applications simultaneously in order to cross reference the time frame of activities with documentation and/or data." Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice edits! 

message: The tag for assessing the lemma written as a personal reflection has lost its evidence. Since taggiong in 2009 the reflection turned out as a common understnadin. The referred specifications given by W3C are not everyones' knowledge and may be seen as a special community description. However it is common sense that bodies of international stadardization are accepted as those entities who set the terms and regulate the interpretation by basic definitions. Hence the personal reflection tag appears mo longer valid and got deleted.Wireless friend (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer validity of personal reflection tag 

message: Hi, I think this article english is the reference for the other langage but I would like to remake the french article. So it's possible to validate a new plan in this article ? And I will use this plan in the french article.
For example :
*1 Introduction
**1.1 History 
**1.2 Relationship between Semantic and Semantic Web 
**1.3 Use-Cases
**1.4. Roadmap toward a Knowledge Society
**1.4. The context
*2. The utopias
**2.1. Socio-political
**2.2. Economic
**2.3. Industrial
**2.4. Technological
**2.5. Meta-utopia
*3. The reality
**3.1. The collective intelligence's revolution
**3.2. The grid computing's technological revolution
**3.3. The Crowdsourcing's industrial revolution
**3.4. The Plugin architecture's economic revolution
**3.5. The Buzz's socio-political revolution
*5 Projects
**5.1 WikiData
**5.2 DBpedia
**...
*4 Technologies
** 4.1 XML
** 4.2... (RDF, SPARQL, OWL...)
	
What do you think of this summary ? --Karima Rafes (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The English language version is not a particularly good model in its present state. Although lots of high-quality work has gone into, it's generally poorly organized and confusing. While you might use it as a starting point, I'd suggest being fairly brutal in rewriting it.24.69.174.26 (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New summary ? 

message: I was shocked to find such a poor-quality article on such an important topic. While it's clear that many knowledgeable editors have worked diligently to improve the article, the end result resembles the ramblings of a brilliant but senile computer scientist in the nursing home. I'm by no means as expert on this subject as many other editors, but I think I'm suitable to take on the role of chief surgeon (or, maybe Lord High Executioner), and just cut out the obscure, or half-formed, or off-topic passages. If I delete anything vital, please feel free to restore it, but in a rewritten fashion that makes its importance clear. 24.69.174.26 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've finished my slice and dice of the article. Before y'all go and mass-revert me, let me point out that this article was rated "Start class" in terms in quality, and since this can have nothing with its length or general accuracy, it is most likely a criticism of its extremely poor organization. I've tried to make some initial steps towards remediating this.24.69.174.26 (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was about to do just that, based on byte counts, but when I looked at it, what you've done is an improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for major surgery 

message: What do you think about this text ? in challenge ?
In theory, Semantic Web is practicable but the questions to solve are still numerous.
So, the researchers divided the cake of Semantic Web into several layers  as did the architects of the Internet with the OSI model. In this way, we can resolve the problems one after the other and also see the path remaining to be done.
The first problem was to be able to identify the information in a unique way. The solution chosen is inspired by the addresses of Web pages (URL). For example: http://example.com/article1233.htm.
The layer URI / IRI is going to reach in a legible way the information on Internet by using his own language. For example in the future, we can imagine this type of address: http://zh.wikipedia.org/夾竹桃科
The second problem is to be able to transport information written by a human being without modifying the signified. A first step was to make XML, a common language between the machine and the man. So, the XML contains the signifier and a grammatical structure (XMLSchema). 
The third problem is to be able to store information without degrading it. To be able to store information, the speaker and the listener have to know exactly the linguistic structure of the information. However in principle with the XML, the linguistic structure is not known by the listener, which is a machine. So, it has to decipher the information to store the signifier. 
By remaining compatible with the protocols of exchange XML, the RDF (Resource Description Framework) is going to allow defining this minimal linguistic structure, so as to allow the storage of the information. It is what we are going to call a semantic interoperability.
The RDF thus transports the signifier (for example the word: nut), the linguistic structure which contains the signifier (I'm eating a nut.) but it does not transport the structural characteristics of this world. This is the job of RDFS (RDF Schema) and OWL technologies (Web Ontology language), which bring the methods to build common structural characteristics of the world. Ontologies currently grow throughout the Web but the following stage would consist in defining gradually the ontologies in RDF/OWL which represent the world. This work began with initiatives such as the  Swoogle  service, which references the ontologies available on the Web to allow homogenizing the ontologies – or such as DBPedia  which is building a complete ontology. So in a long-lasting way, these initiatives try to build the interpretable common structural characteristics of this world by machines.
The following stage will be to build the logical bricks which will allow to build logical demonstrations (proof layer) to allow a machine explain why an information is true, false or undetermined (trust layer) according to the origin of the sources of information (crypto layer). 
May be you use a part of this text in (old) challenge ? you can create a sub-part old and last challenge ?--Karima Rafes (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem with this content is that I can't tell if it is original research or not. Can you add some citations that clearly support this material? 24.69.174.26 (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wrote this text, 3 years ago (it's not a very good english). Since 2006, I works around the semantic web with SPARQL. Maybe, we can insert the text and wait the comments of the experts of w3c... No ?--Karima Rafes (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  In challenge ? 

message: I'd just like to suggest that this section be removed until it can be sufficiently improved. This section was flagged and threatened to be deleted over a year ago. A few words, but nothing substantial has changed. As it is now, it is very jarring to come upon while reading the article, because it is stylistically disparate, is obviously original research, and the examples themselves are unclear and do not sufficiently clarify the nature of or explain possible applications of the Semantic Web. There are fabulous introductory examples that exist in actual scholarly work, especially Berners-Lee's Scientific American article. I wouldn't mind hunting a few down in the literature if anyone has suggestions of what they'd like to see in this section. In the meantime, I still think it just has to go. Marjaq (talk) 08:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I trimmed it back, but agree that it is inappropriate as is. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree. There are some nice ideas there, but they don't fit in the style of an encyclopedia. Whatever the correct reference to "While its critics have questioned its feasibility, proponents argue that applications in industry, biology and human sciences research have already proven the validity of the original concept" is, should provide some examples that have actually been accomplished. Easily accessible examples like that from the Scientific American article would be useful too. 130.243.141.145 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the reference should be improved, if possible, but I don't think we need to add examples here, in the introduction. We want to keep the intro concise. There should be supporting examples in the body, as well support for the assertion that the SW has already proved its value.24.69.174.26 (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples Section 

message: The last paragraph in the "Purpose" section is taken directly from the paper it referencesGerber, AJ, Barnard, A & Van der Merwe, Alta (2006), A Semantic Web Status Model, Integrated Design & Process Technology, Special Issue: IDPT 2006 without attributing the quote. As it makes no sense in the context anyway, I suggest it be deleted. Pingless (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose -- unattributed quote 

message: "Deceit: This is when the producer of the information is intentionally misleading the consumer of the information. Cryptography techniques are currently utilized to alleviate this threat."
The first sentence is poorly written (I mean the "This is"). The second one IMHO is not necessarily related to the first one... If the producer is deceiving me, and has their authentication keys etc. in good working order, how is crypto going to help? 204.225.33.9 (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I too while very interested in any real anti-deceit methodology am mystified at the idea that cryptography could help in any way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalMorris (talk • contribs) 21:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Same here. Most of the "deceitful" content on the current Web is spammy advertising; crypto is of no help here. 109.157.79.50 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this should be restated in that the "challenge" is really one of Trust rather than deceit.   Ref:  Trust Managment for the Semantic Web .   Burt Harris 22:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deceit 

message: The "History" section currently starts:
:"The concept of the Semantic Network Model was formed in the early sixties by the cognitive scientist Allan M. Collins, linguist M. Ross Quillian and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus in various publications, as a form to represent semantically structured knowledge. It extends the network of hyperlinked human-readable web pages by inserting machine-readable metadata about pages and how they are related to each other, enabling automated agents to access the Web more intelligently and perform tasks on behalf of users."
Surely they did not do that.  I'm not sure what has happened here, a sentence got removed or moved around...? /skagedaltalk 14:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semantic Web in the early sixties... 

message: "The standard promotes common data formats [ ... ]"
It is unclear what standard is being referred to. Is it meant to be "the standards body (W3C)" or is the sentence referring to an actual standard?
Hope I am not b0rking somthing, I am not an experienced editor. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.19.86 (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Second sentence

message: Rather than jump into a description of an example I think the background section should come directly after the lead. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the example at this top place, because I think it is most useful there for pedagogic reasons. Where would you put the example otherwise? --denny vrandečić (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Section order

message: Adding this after the "Common metadata..." bullet point
Hectorlopez17 (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Hectorlopez17. Unfortunately, I cannot add those sentences since some were copied word-for-word from the journal article. The journal article is licensed CC-BY-NC-ND 2.5, which is incompatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA 3.0 license – the journal does not permit commercial reuse but Wikipedia does. You'll have to paraphrase that sentence if it is to be incorporated into the article. Best, Altamel (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applications 

message: I am writing my undergraduate thesis on Semantic Web, and I came across the chapter about the challenges; I did a cursory look at the paper from Lukasiewicz and Straccia (2008) but there was no mention of those five challenges. What's worse is that apparently some books and another paper have lifted those five challenges and their descriptions word by word from this page, and still credit Lukasiewicz and Straccia for that! 
There is another paper, by Benjamin-Contreras-Corcho, that deals with six challenges that might be used in place of these 5 made up challenges instead (but they feel really clunky).
I suggest placing an "original research" disclaimer until the issue is solved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.53.75.193 (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenges of Semantic Web: suspected circular reference. 

message: "Technologists often talk about the Web 3.0, the next phase of the internet’s evolution. On this vision, humans will reclaim the internet, their data, and their anonymity from large outside forces, whether they be corporate firms or government entities." Benjamin (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web 3.0 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Web 3.0. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 10#Web 3.0 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Web 3.0" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I find it interesting that the page describing the Semantic Web does not conform to the Semantic Web format. 170.128.35.30 (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good point. This page is on my list of pages to improve, but I have a few I'm prioritizing first. Do you have any suggestions or ways we could improve this? GeogSage (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semantic Web Page not part of the semantic web 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion