This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Data model article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I removed the following text, see here, which was added both here and in the data modeling by User:EddyVanderlinden:
I removed this text about W3C, RDF, OWL because it doesn't explain much itself, and doesn't explain the link with data modeling. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 09:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Mdd ( talk) 20:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I have undone the change in the lead sentence for the simple reason that it was not wikified. In a high-frequently viewed article like this it should be. Now I don't appose to a change in the lead sentence but it does have to fit the Wikipedia rules about lay out. Now the current article states:
Now a new lead sentence is proposed by user:63.117.201.120:
Now one of the rules is that the article has to start with the subject. So it could become:
Now for me as a not-native American I don't know what the expression "to document data with rigor" means? -- Mdd ( talk) 19:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just been revisiting this article after several years' absence. A surprising lack of recent talk?
The article starts reasonably well: sections 1, 2, 3 seem to provide a reasonably logical and consistent exposition.
After that it completely falls apart. Sections 4 and 5 are an absolute rag-bag. There's a whole sequence of 20 or so 3-or-4 paragraph sections each of which makes reasonable sense on its own, but none of which seem to fit into any coherent narrative for the article as a whole. Frankly, the article would be better without them.
Mhkay ( talk) 20:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether these really constitute alternative data models or whether they can be understood to be subsumed by some already listed.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Data model article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I removed the following text, see here, which was added both here and in the data modeling by User:EddyVanderlinden:
I removed this text about W3C, RDF, OWL because it doesn't explain much itself, and doesn't explain the link with data modeling. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 09:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Mdd ( talk) 20:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I have undone the change in the lead sentence for the simple reason that it was not wikified. In a high-frequently viewed article like this it should be. Now I don't appose to a change in the lead sentence but it does have to fit the Wikipedia rules about lay out. Now the current article states:
Now a new lead sentence is proposed by user:63.117.201.120:
Now one of the rules is that the article has to start with the subject. So it could become:
Now for me as a not-native American I don't know what the expression "to document data with rigor" means? -- Mdd ( talk) 19:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just been revisiting this article after several years' absence. A surprising lack of recent talk?
The article starts reasonably well: sections 1, 2, 3 seem to provide a reasonably logical and consistent exposition.
After that it completely falls apart. Sections 4 and 5 are an absolute rag-bag. There's a whole sequence of 20 or so 3-or-4 paragraph sections each of which makes reasonable sense on its own, but none of which seem to fit into any coherent narrative for the article as a whole. Frankly, the article would be better without them.
Mhkay ( talk) 20:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether these really constitute alternative data models or whether they can be understood to be subsumed by some already listed.