Template talk:Semantic Web

src: infolead.mobi

Video Template talk:Semantic Web

A horizontal version of this template

I think this template should be changed from this vertical version into a "horizontal collapsible version" for the following reason:

1. The existence of this template in the "Background" articles (World Wide Web, The Internet, Databases, Semantic networks, Knowledge bases, Ontologies) is given a wrong suggestion. The vertical template suggests the article is part of that larger subject, see for example Template:Software development process. But here it is the other way around. All articles mentioned are just a background. All though the template itself explains, I think this not enough. The existence of the template in the Ontology (information science) has mistaken me for weeks, making me believe ontology is part of the semantic web.
2. The template is quite long, and longer than several short articles listed in the template. For example (data web, Hyperdata) or as long as the article (Dereferenceable Uniform Resource Identifier). And I think that is unacceptable.
3. The vertical template is standing in the way of possible images in the articles, or completely disturbing the lay out, (for example in Linked Data). This is unaccaptable.

A horizontal collapsible version of this template solves this problem. I has some more advantages:

• It can easily be extended
• It can be combined with other templates.
• and I can be used for example in the background articles in combination with other templates

I understand this template wants to promote the semantic web, and I support this. But at the moment I think this is giving to much trouble. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the creator of this template User:Ultimatewisdom seems no longer active. because of this I changed the template myself and rearranged the template in the articles, where it was listed. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:Semantic Web

Standards

Currently this is listed as:

The distinction between these sections within the list seems arbitrary and confusing. e.g. RDFa, SKOS and RIF were developed within the W3C; HTTP and URI are really IETF standards, not W3C. And GRDDL is used in semantic annotation of HTML. A better categorisation would be along these lines (IMHO):

-- Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.120.180 (talk o contribs)

I looks fine to me. Thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

src: cdn.colorlib.com

Drop "people" and "organizations", these lists will always be POV

There is no doubt that Tim Berners-Lee was an influential person concerning the semantic web, and there is no doubt that the W3C is important. But then it's debatable why certain other persons and organizations are not listed -- and it will always be debatable, unless these lists are removed. --Langec (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC) (a semantic web researcher)

I agree it is debatable. At the Software Engineering Template there is this kind of discussion, see Template talk:Software Engineering. I think it is important that such template mentions some of the most important people in the field. This should give an opening to the biographical articles in the field, which are just as important as the thematic articles. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with User:Langec, I don't think either of these are satisfactory. Standards orgs involved are less troublesome, but they are reachable via standards. shellac (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

src: blog.liu.se

Questions

Is UDDI part of The Semantic Web concepts? --70.79.87.53 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Only tenuously. Both have an interest in service discovery and setting up loosely coupled co-operations between independently authored services and agents using them. However UDDI and especially WSDL are built with a clearly pre-SemWeb approach. They're built around a framework that defines a pre-existing schema for what they're offering to describe, then describe it strictly according to only that schema (two un-SemWeb practices). It works, in a limited way. When we look at choreography in-between those two levels of description though, the pre-SemWeb approaches fall flat and so we don't yet have a widely used approach for describing it. It's one of those areas that doesn't work until we can have useful SemWeb approaches to apply to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia