Template talk:Semantic Web

collapse

Standards

Currently this is listed as:

W3C based : RDF • OWL • URI • HTTP • SPARQL • GRDDL • RDFS

Common Vocabularies : FOAF • SIOC • Dublin Core • SKOS

Semantic Annotation : RDFa • Microformats • eRDF

Rules : Rule Interchange Format • Semantic Web Rule Language

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):

Syntax and Supporting Technologies : RDF (Notation 3 • Turtle • N-Triples) • SPARQL • URI • HTTP • XML

Schemas, Ontologies and Rules : RDFS • OWL • Rule Interchange Format • Semantic Web Rule Language

Semantic Annotation : RDFa • eRDF • GRDDL • Microformats

Common Vocabularies : FOAF • SIOC • Dublin Core • SKOS

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.120.180 (talk • contribs)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Questions

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

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)[reply]