Talk:Semantic Web

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet / SWTF (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Semantic Web task force.
 

Opening sentence[edit]

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 a lay person doing some research to understand the subject. Here's the practical application that helped make sense out this nebulous concept .
"Bob plans a trip to Atlanta. He books a flight on ABC Airways. A semantic web application would recognize "travel" as the theme and provide options to Bob for car rental, hotels, and restaurants - each with reviews. It might also point out golf courses or other sports events if Bob has indicated such metadata in his profile. The application could record the travel itinerary in Bob's calendar and in the process notify Bob that he will miss his doctor's appointment."

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)

--
Hello All,
I too would definitely appreciate more examples in the article. I have read multiple articles on semantic web but my understanding is still a bit cloudy. I do however appreciate all of the postings and other details provided in the article! It has been a huge help, especially for others in my advanced web programming course at Wayne State University.
Awp-wsu-af (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Merges[edit]

Rule Interchange Format[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is a large disucssion on Talk:DBpedia. Everyone except yourself has had their concerns satisfied. Nloth (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)

Semantic publishing[edit]

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)

Semantic publishing is broader (and aims rather lower, IMHO) than Linked Data, which is technically quite constrained to make it more practical and simpler to implement. Semantic publishing is also vague woffle from a whole bunch of people with no real pitch for it, whereas linked data is a single coherent soundbite from STBL. The crucial difference is that linked data assumes the use of URIs, and dereferencable URIs at that (i.e. the property values quoted are identifiers to machine-readable descriptions) rather than taxons in some vocabulary, which might have some "obvious" meaning to smart humans, but are a damned nuisance to work with using dumb, simple machinery.
Most semantic publishing is (IM-far-from-HO) self-limiting twaddle that doesn't go far enough to be useful and is just a pale and fairly non-functional shadow of any real Semantic Web, whatever that turns out to be in the future. Linked data is the low-hanging fruit you can go out and build today. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 28 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 web? CORBA, a programming language??[edit]

"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 think the whole second paragraph is of questionable validity and should be removed. 129.49.101.90 (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

copyediting[edit]

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)

Semantic Web Solutions[edit]

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)

Edit request from Linkeddatatools, 6 September 2010[edit]

{{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)

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)
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)

Student Contributors Seek Guidance[edit]

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)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and glad you're interested in this article. Here are some ideas:
  • Capitalization: "Semantic Web" or "semantic web"?
  • Should the projects be in this article? Are they used as examples of the content? Or does it make sense to split them into another article? (Like List of Semantic Web Projects)?
  • Check the list in the "multiple issues" box is old. Do these still apply? How can they be fixed?
    • Need more references
    • Tone/personal essay--Can you revise to use more formal language?
    • Cleanup--Check the spelling, grammar. Does it need a more wiki-oriented style?
How's that for a start?
Another place to look for ideas is the list of Good Article criteria. Good Articles are one step below Featured Articles (which may appear on the homepage). (Here's a cheatsheet of the 'grading' criteria for GA, if that helps. If you want a model, the Featured Article on Search engine optimization (one step better than GA) might help. It would be great to improve Semantic Web to be a Good Article, and eventually a Featured Article!
If there's anything you need (regarding the SemWeb topic or Wikipedia advice), let me know, either here or on my Talk page. Happy editing! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with all that. Just remember that everything in the article should WP:V verifiable to a WP:RS reliable source. Read the best sources, read the article and tweak where necessary to make it reflect the best and latest published thinking. Then put in the WP:CITE references sentence by sentence so that everybody can see that none of it is WP:SYN synthesis or WP:OR original research on Wikipedia's part. Perfect. --Nigelj (talk) 20:28, 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)

HTML5?[edit]

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)

Some of the new tags and attributes in HTML5 may be able to make web content more semantic, in the sense described in semantic HTML, but I don't know that there is much connection with the Semantic Web concept described here, the one where you book a night in a hotel and your user agent tells you that a shop near that hotel has a copy of a rare book you searched for two weeks ago... In a discussion at Talk:HTML5#Further reading section we strayed into wondering if some people are treating 'HTML5' as a wide-ranging buzzword, like 'Web 3.0', that describes something proposed as a new business model or a new mindset for some businesses. That's as maybe, but if so it has little to do with HTML5, the specification, and would need good citations. What connection did you have in mind? --Nigelj (talk) 22:23, 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)

I think that there are about 4 visions that people might call s/Semantic w/Web that get tossed around. It's very confusing when you're just coming into it and trying to figure out what people are talking about. I see what you're trying to say about HTML5 and the semantic tags that it's adding. I think those are covered at Microdata (HTML5).
About your earlier points...
  • First, I'm really not sure that Web3.0 and Semantic Web are 'virtually synonymous.'
  • Second, the main advantage of RDFa to HTML5, as I see it, is the ability to use RDFa without XHTML. You can already write RDFa in XHTML+RDFa; you can see some by viewing source at O'Reilly books pages for instance. (This blog post by Ed Summers points out some tools for interacting with the RDFa.) I think there's been a fair amount of confusion in the press about HTML5 and RDFa--things like the increased use of GoodRelations. If you're really interested in HTML5, there's a nice keynote/article by Jeremy Keith; his blog might be interesting since he's a master designer who values semantics (maybe the lowercase semweb rather than capital S capital W). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 23:19, 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)

Nah, that's original research (WP:OR). Complete conjecture, in fact! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 01:25, 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 (talkcontribs) 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![edit]

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)

Recent edits and reversions[edit]

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:

  • Define "Semantic Web" first and foremost as the web of data itself, not the standards and technologies that enable it. While those working on the semantic web have a tendency to use the term informally to refer to the technologies, virtually all references define the semantic web as the web of data itself. This really is the only sensible main definition.
  • State that Tim Berners-Lee is the creator of the World Wide Web immediately upon mentioning him. It adds context.
  • Briefly mention areas in which Semantic Web technologies are already common.
  • Instead of merely listing a bunch of formats in the second paragraph, also provide a brief (one-sentence) explanation of how the Semantic Web works - annotation of HTML with machine-readable metadata (primarily).

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 WhiteT·C 23:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edits conflated both some useful copyediting (which I'd welcome), but also some significant redefinition of the scope of "Semantic Web". This change was unreferenced, is in contradiction to previous refs (including Tim's own comments over several years) and thus I regard it as an unacceptable change.
The "definition" of SemWeb, as far as such a definition has ever gone, is "some techie stuff that does some useful stuff, where the useful stuff is as follows..." Your change instead said that SemWeb consisted of particular technical approaches (and thus excluded other approaches, that could achieve the same end result). In particular your change stated that SemWeb relies on explicit publishing of metadata, rather than metadata discovery by inferrential techniques. You also removed a section on using natural language processing to support SemWeb, claiming (without references) that NL approaches are somehow outside SemWeb. Explicit publishing is a good thing, it is probably more reliable, and it certainly delivers more useful benefit today. Yet it's not the only route to SemWeb.
Oddly you have also incorporated microformats as being within the SemWeb tent, when they were previously described as being somewhat outside it. (Personally I think microformats are some half-baked ideas cooked up by people who couldn't be bothered to read up on the good stuff, but they'd have to be regarded as being within the broad-scope definition). Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
None of the rest of the article or the references I've checked consider extracting semantics from unstructured text via natural language processing to be a Semantic Web technology per se. I'm not saying metadata discovery by inferential techniques isn't necessarily Semantic Web (Website Parse Template, for instance, surely is), but if the extracted metadata (in this case, really a much less structured collection of subject-verb-object triples, apparently) isn't published in a machine-readable format and is merely used by e.g. Quertle to power a search engine/question answering service of sorts, then sure, it meets your definition of "some techie stuff that does some useful stuff where the useful stuff is [semantically aware user-facing tools]" but doesn't it sort of run orthogonally to the main technical thrust of the Semantic Web, publishing machine-readable metadata? Maybe you'd like to argue that the Semantic Web includes any tool that provides semantic capabilities, but I think there is a certain technical aspect to the definition beyond merely whether a tool assists the original vision of semantic answer machines -- namely, does it publish or use structured data?
Given the complete lack of mention of natural language processing in the article previously, and in references I've checked (e.g. [1]), I would still like to see a reliable source that says that natural language processing independent of standard Semantic Web formats and technologies is considered Semantic Web. (Though if such a reference were found, I think that definitely supports adding to the Components and maybe summary section of the article, but not necessarily reinstating Quertle - there should still be a discussion of both how relevant and how important relative to other projects it is).
Microformats - yes, I wanted to get rid of the one-sentence paragraph and I thought it flowed well enough in the paragraph about Semantic Web progress. But perhaps that should be undone, or the statement that microformats are not always described as "Semantic Web" re-added. I didn't mean to put microformats under the SemWeb tent, but maybe I made it ambiguous.--Michael WhiteT·C 02:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No longer validity of personal reflection tag[edit]

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)

New summary ?[edit]

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)

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)

Time for major surgery[edit]

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)

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)
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)

In challenge ?[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Examples Section[edit]

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)

I trimmed it back, but agree that it is inappropriate as is. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
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).
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)

Purpose -- unattributed quote[edit]

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)

Requested move to "Semantic web"[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Semantic WebSemantic web

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)

  • Oppose. Semantic Web is like World Wide Web; it refers to a single specific thing and this is its name. It's not a type of thing. Powers T 16:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a hard one, as I have long helped to reduce capitalisation in related articles. Here in the UK we do not capitalise references to the internet or the web in ordinary writing, but I have given up on those in Wikipedia articles: apparently in America they do, and some of them are very insistent that their way is right. I have had some success with adjectival use as 'Web browser', 'Internet connection' etc really look wrong to me. I was not familiar with Ngram, but I think this is a more realistic search there. Slightly unlike LtPowers above, I would say that the Semantic Web is a project, or as our article says a movement, that is being run by W3C. They always capitalise it as such[2] and so do most users of the term according to Ngram. There are other uses of the term/phrase, though, that should not be capitalised, and so we should not allow people to be religious about this. As examples, I would say, "With a bit more effort, we could make a semantic web out of this, like the W3C's Semantic Web project recommends" and "Is it true that semantic web techniques will one day make the whole internet machine readable? That would make the Semantic Web a huge success." I think this article is about the W3C project, not the phrase in everyday usage. But I may be wrong about the article, or about Tony1's plans for it. I'm open to persuasion on those points. --Nigelj (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Deceit[edit]

"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)

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 (talkcontribs) 21:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Semantic Web in the early sixties...[edit]

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)

  1. ^ Gerber, AJ, Barnard, A & Van der Merwe, Alta (2006), A Semantic Web Status Model, Integrated Design & Process Technology, Special Issue: IDPT 2006