This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Semantic Web 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: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Data Web page were merged into Semantic Web on 27 February 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
|
|
Could somebody please put examples of 'semantic web' immediately after the opening sentence? Otherwise it just sounds a bit waffly and, more importantly, the intelligent lay reader is lost. Thanks. 86.42.96.251 ( talk) 10:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not qualified to add this, but hopefully it will prompt someone else to do so. Rcdavisiii ( talk) 20:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Rcdavisiii ( talk) 20:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
Pasted from Talk:Semantic publishing#Merge_discussion
The idea of using semantic web technology to publish machine-readable data available via the public internet is known as Linked Data, and there's already a nice page for that. This article presents no useful information that can't be found on the Semantic Web page. It's also full of enough grammatical mistakes to not even be worth correcting. It should just be deleted.
Bobdc ( talk) 23:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think these should be merged. I think the articles have developed enough separately at this point. Unless I hear objections, I plan to remove this merge tag. Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 11:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
{{editsemiprotected}} 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)
Not done: The links suggested are inconsistent with Wikipedia's external links policy. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm part of a Networking class at DePaul University and we've been given a project to "improve" on a wiki page. There are three of us and we chose Semantic Web. Editing Wikipedia is kind of a new thing to us and we've been at this for a couple of weeks and none of us are really sure where to start, nor do we wish to step on anyone's toes. So as an act of desperation we've still got a couple of weeks left, but if anyone could points us in a direction on where to start or what needs to be added it could be of great benefit to both us and the page itself. We would greatly appreciate it. Bigdaddy1978 ( talk) 02:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. This should help get the ball rolling. If anyone has anything to add or any ideas for us please don't hesitate to let us know. Bigdaddy1978 ( talk) 15:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking there should probably be an additional entry for HTML5. Should it maybe go into the Projects section, have it's own heading, or am I possibly barking up the wrong tree? Bigdaddy1978 ( talk) 21:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of the HTML/CSS relationship has been one of semantics/aesthetics respectively. Now here comes Web 3.0 which as we've pointed out is virtually synonymous with Semantic Web. Since HTML was always been the primary language the web is built around it only seemed logical to mention the next step in the semantic language of the web in regard to "Semantic Web", unless I'm just missing something completely. Furthermore in my research I keep coming across articles like these: · http://www.joergweishaupt.com/seo/design-and-usability/html5-rdfa-unlocking-the-semantic-web.html & · http://webaim.org/blog/future-web-accessibility-html5-semantic-tags/
The page seems to want to stay on the super complicated stuff without discussing the simple semantic changes to the web itself. HTML5 for example has added very simple tags such as <video>, <header>, <footer>, etc. These are very simple, yet very significant changes in the actual semantics of web. It just seems to me they're worth mentioning, but again, that is unless I'm just missing a trick here. Bigdaddy1978 ( talk) 22:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
With that said, then, if there are four visions of semantic web, should these be separated into different articles or should there be a section titled "Semantic Web Visions" or something like that that would go ahead and discuss these differences?
Boba1213 (
talk) 00:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just trying to figure out what it is exactly we can add to this (I'm part of that student group) as there's just a lot of varying information that seems to be mostly... personal research or as you said or conjecture or even just information that disagrees with other stuff. A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boba1213 ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
There are different visions of the Semantic Web,but the bottom line is, its just about turning the information into data.Its about giving order to this data.So the 'visions' perceived here maybe the innumerable ways of odering this undifferentiated information,in my opinion. Hpatel44 ( talk) 03:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
I recently made two edits to this article. In the first, I tried to make the summary flow better and be a bit more cohesive. I tried to do several things:
I also removed this entire paragraph because it's vague, hypothetical, and repetitive: 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 [what?]. 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 [what?]. According to the original vision, the availability of machine-readable metadata would enable automated agents and other software to access the Web more intelligently. The agents would be able to perform tasks automatically and locate related information on behalf of the user. I think that for the summary, saying that the Semantic Web helps machines understand the meaning of pages and process and analyze them is sufficient; leave more detailed examples for the rest of the article. It is really hard to state a concrete use case concisely. I think it should be tried in the summary, but I don't think this is the right text.
In the second, I removed a subsection under Projects for Quertle, a scientific literature search engine that uses natural language processing to index documents and whose only use of Semantic Web technologies is "An ontology covering genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, cell types, and other life, chemical, and biomedical science nomenclature is used to automatically search for all variants of a term in the user's query", which hardly shows the level of relatedness with Semantic Web technologies that would merit inclusion on a short list on this article. In short, its inclusion smacks of promotion.
Andy Dingley then wholly reverted both of my edits with the summary "rv. Unrealistic and narrow view of one possible SW implementation, based on a requirement for deliberate semantic publishing. Real SW is broader than this, and also encompasses natural language approaches."
I am undoing this reversion. Andy, please find good sources that state that extracting semantics via natural language processing can be categorized as Semantic Web, and if you don't like some change I made in my first edit, please don't revert the whole thing.-- Michael White T· C 23:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 :
What do you think of this summary ? --
Karima Rafes (
talk) 07:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The last paragraph in the "Purpose" section is taken directly from the paper it references [1] 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)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The article is riddled with meaningless upcasings, which is suspicious. It's high time we followed the sources on the title. ngram says it all.
Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
"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)
The "History" section currently starts:
Surely they did not do that. :) I'm not sure what has happened here, a sentence got removed or moved around...? / skagedal talk 14:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
"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)
It's true that bringing semantics to the web could possibly constitute a new web era similar to Web 2.0. But, the web has evolved in so many ways since 2.0 that it simply is not a 2.0 web anymore, and that's not all for the semantics which yet has to be realized in terms of impact. Web 3.0 is social, adaptive and mobile all together and is a network of hypermedia. I think all these things (and possibly more) define Web 3.0 in a very broad sense. There is no English Wikipedia page for Web 3.0, but a redirection to the web 3.0 section in the semantic web page.
I think Web 3.0 (yes, even with being a buzzword) constitutes a broader topic than semantic web and should get it's own page. A redirection should possibly be made the other way around, from web 3.0 to semantic web that is. What are your thoughts on this?
Here's a nice explanation of how things evolved between web 2.0 and 3.0: http://lifeboat.com/ex/web.3.0 77.161.244.145 ( talk) 12:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.161.244.145 ( talk) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
Adding this after the "Common metadata..." bullet point
(Redacted) [3]
Hectorlopez17 ( talk) 00:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
References
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)
[3] "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)
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)
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)
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)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Semantic Web 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: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Data Web page were merged into Semantic Web on 27 February 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
|
|
Could somebody please put examples of 'semantic web' immediately after the opening sentence? Otherwise it just sounds a bit waffly and, more importantly, the intelligent lay reader is lost. Thanks. 86.42.96.251 ( talk) 10:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not qualified to add this, but hopefully it will prompt someone else to do so. Rcdavisiii ( talk) 20:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Rcdavisiii ( talk) 20:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
Pasted from Talk:Semantic publishing#Merge_discussion
The idea of using semantic web technology to publish machine-readable data available via the public internet is known as Linked Data, and there's already a nice page for that. This article presents no useful information that can't be found on the Semantic Web page. It's also full of enough grammatical mistakes to not even be worth correcting. It should just be deleted.
Bobdc ( talk) 23:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think these should be merged. I think the articles have developed enough separately at this point. Unless I hear objections, I plan to remove this merge tag. Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 11:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
{{editsemiprotected}} 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)
Not done: The links suggested are inconsistent with Wikipedia's external links policy. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm part of a Networking class at DePaul University and we've been given a project to "improve" on a wiki page. There are three of us and we chose Semantic Web. Editing Wikipedia is kind of a new thing to us and we've been at this for a couple of weeks and none of us are really sure where to start, nor do we wish to step on anyone's toes. So as an act of desperation we've still got a couple of weeks left, but if anyone could points us in a direction on where to start or what needs to be added it could be of great benefit to both us and the page itself. We would greatly appreciate it. Bigdaddy1978 ( talk) 02:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. This should help get the ball rolling. If anyone has anything to add or any ideas for us please don't hesitate to let us know. Bigdaddy1978 ( talk) 15:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking there should probably be an additional entry for HTML5. Should it maybe go into the Projects section, have it's own heading, or am I possibly barking up the wrong tree? Bigdaddy1978 ( talk) 21:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of the HTML/CSS relationship has been one of semantics/aesthetics respectively. Now here comes Web 3.0 which as we've pointed out is virtually synonymous with Semantic Web. Since HTML was always been the primary language the web is built around it only seemed logical to mention the next step in the semantic language of the web in regard to "Semantic Web", unless I'm just missing something completely. Furthermore in my research I keep coming across articles like these: · http://www.joergweishaupt.com/seo/design-and-usability/html5-rdfa-unlocking-the-semantic-web.html & · http://webaim.org/blog/future-web-accessibility-html5-semantic-tags/
The page seems to want to stay on the super complicated stuff without discussing the simple semantic changes to the web itself. HTML5 for example has added very simple tags such as <video>, <header>, <footer>, etc. These are very simple, yet very significant changes in the actual semantics of web. It just seems to me they're worth mentioning, but again, that is unless I'm just missing a trick here. Bigdaddy1978 ( talk) 22:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
With that said, then, if there are four visions of semantic web, should these be separated into different articles or should there be a section titled "Semantic Web Visions" or something like that that would go ahead and discuss these differences?
Boba1213 (
talk) 00:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just trying to figure out what it is exactly we can add to this (I'm part of that student group) as there's just a lot of varying information that seems to be mostly... personal research or as you said or conjecture or even just information that disagrees with other stuff. A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boba1213 ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
There are different visions of the Semantic Web,but the bottom line is, its just about turning the information into data.Its about giving order to this data.So the 'visions' perceived here maybe the innumerable ways of odering this undifferentiated information,in my opinion. Hpatel44 ( talk) 03:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
I recently made two edits to this article. In the first, I tried to make the summary flow better and be a bit more cohesive. I tried to do several things:
I also removed this entire paragraph because it's vague, hypothetical, and repetitive: 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 [what?]. 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 [what?]. According to the original vision, the availability of machine-readable metadata would enable automated agents and other software to access the Web more intelligently. The agents would be able to perform tasks automatically and locate related information on behalf of the user. I think that for the summary, saying that the Semantic Web helps machines understand the meaning of pages and process and analyze them is sufficient; leave more detailed examples for the rest of the article. It is really hard to state a concrete use case concisely. I think it should be tried in the summary, but I don't think this is the right text.
In the second, I removed a subsection under Projects for Quertle, a scientific literature search engine that uses natural language processing to index documents and whose only use of Semantic Web technologies is "An ontology covering genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, cell types, and other life, chemical, and biomedical science nomenclature is used to automatically search for all variants of a term in the user's query", which hardly shows the level of relatedness with Semantic Web technologies that would merit inclusion on a short list on this article. In short, its inclusion smacks of promotion.
Andy Dingley then wholly reverted both of my edits with the summary "rv. Unrealistic and narrow view of one possible SW implementation, based on a requirement for deliberate semantic publishing. Real SW is broader than this, and also encompasses natural language approaches."
I am undoing this reversion. Andy, please find good sources that state that extracting semantics via natural language processing can be categorized as Semantic Web, and if you don't like some change I made in my first edit, please don't revert the whole thing.-- Michael White T· C 23:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 :
What do you think of this summary ? --
Karima Rafes (
talk) 07:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The last paragraph in the "Purpose" section is taken directly from the paper it references [1] 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)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The article is riddled with meaningless upcasings, which is suspicious. It's high time we followed the sources on the title. ngram says it all.
Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
"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)
The "History" section currently starts:
Surely they did not do that. :) I'm not sure what has happened here, a sentence got removed or moved around...? / skagedal talk 14:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
"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)
It's true that bringing semantics to the web could possibly constitute a new web era similar to Web 2.0. But, the web has evolved in so many ways since 2.0 that it simply is not a 2.0 web anymore, and that's not all for the semantics which yet has to be realized in terms of impact. Web 3.0 is social, adaptive and mobile all together and is a network of hypermedia. I think all these things (and possibly more) define Web 3.0 in a very broad sense. There is no English Wikipedia page for Web 3.0, but a redirection to the web 3.0 section in the semantic web page.
I think Web 3.0 (yes, even with being a buzzword) constitutes a broader topic than semantic web and should get it's own page. A redirection should possibly be made the other way around, from web 3.0 to semantic web that is. What are your thoughts on this?
Here's a nice explanation of how things evolved between web 2.0 and 3.0: http://lifeboat.com/ex/web.3.0 77.161.244.145 ( talk) 12:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.161.244.145 ( talk) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
Adding this after the "Common metadata..." bullet point
(Redacted) [3]
Hectorlopez17 ( talk) 00:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
References
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)
[3] "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)
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)
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)
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)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)