|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Internet||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Websites / Computing||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
- Someone uploaded a new version, so I put that in the article. -- Beland (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand how the notability of this article can be questioned? It was the main topic of Tim Berners-Lee's TED_(conference) talk (as referenced). Both Tim the person and TED the conference are heavy-weight actors we cannot just ignore? This seems a lot like a personal vendetta by User:AnmaFinotera, and this is just bubbling over from the DBpedia notability discussion.
- The page does need to be improved. 'Notability' is an odd claim that I think points out how easy it is to misunderstand the page, which is mostly a collection of links at present. I took a look at the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines and think it may help to point out
- major companies using linked data:
- New York Times linked data site
- Thomson-Reuters' OpenCalais project BestBuy linked data
- Best Buy Linked Data Melvincarvalho (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- a W3C discussion forum for linked data under the guides of the semantic web activity group
- traditionally-published materials, beyond the Semantic Web conference circuit, such as
- major companies using linked data:
- I think the best argument would be to weave an article that included this sort of information while functioning as a narrative introduction. Anybody want to give that a go? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Both Tim the person and TED the conference are heavy-weight actors we cannot just ignore"
- Works for me. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion
There are a lot of people adding links to their own papers here. I just did an IP lookup for the last citation added and it was added from the same network that hosts the publication.
This seems to be in violation of the Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion policy. As such, I think it hurts the credibility of the article. I recommend that we remove most of the links to articles and only include the ones which have major, historic value (i.e. Linked Data Web architecture note by Tim Berners-Lee). If no one disagrees within a week or so, I will try to prune the list. Linclark (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are correct, this page is currently a mess. I can't distinguish between what is important and what is not. --FeralOink (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is just a minor point, but a citation being added from a network IP hosting the publication isn't necessarily a soapbox issue - self-citation is an issue, but citation of colleagues within an area of expertise is surely fine (assuming the article has some sort of value to it of course!) Sjgknight (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it's spelled Linked Data as it is a name for a special method. In comparison data that is linked with other methods is linked data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianHellmann (talk • contribs) 22:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Links to projects
Do we really need all those EU projects listed here? I mean, we we don't. List all physics projects on the page of physics. :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- (Note: I am a little biased as I am working for LOD2 at the moment). I am torn as these are the major projects working on Linked Data at the moment. Physics is a big area. Maybe Linked Data can be compared to Endangered Language in the area of language research/linguistics regarding size. I think for now it is ok to include the projects here. If there are more (it is a growing area), the biggest ones should get their own pages and the other ones can be moved to a List of Linked Data projects or so. Just my opinion. SebastianHellmann (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
How come this is categorized under Buzzwords? Linked Data is an official umbrella-term for a number of standards by the W3C, the main standards body for the Web. NoSQL on the other hand falls much more certainly in the buzzword category since there are no standards behind it whatsoever, but is not classified as such. I suspect some biased editing behind this, and will be removing the Buzzwords category. Pumba lt (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Mild clean-up and strong suggestion
I placed the "link rot" designation on one of the external links in the examples section, or rather "Use case demos". It was the entry for Northwind SQL schema Demo OpenLinkSW CustomerID as it leads to a page with no content, not a 404, well, you'll understand if you look at it. I think there IS something there, but the link needs to be corrected appropriately, and I don't know what the intent was originally, nor enough about the subject matter to do it myself.
Also, I removed a duplicate external URL that was already mentioned as the first of the four References in the article. I removed the duplicate from one of the many lists of assorted links toward the bottom, NOT from the far too few bona fide References! --FeralOink (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC) This was the duplicate:
Linked Data – The Story So Far (2009) by Christian Bizer, Tom Heath, Tim Berners-Lee, International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS), 5(3): 1–22. DOI: 10.4018/jswis.2009081901
There are only four (or five?) actual references in this article. Meanwhile, there are DOZENS of URLs, many to PDF files, and I have no idea if these papers are significant, ever published, etc. There's no context.
This article needs to be re-written as appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. It is HIGHLY NOTABLE subject matter! But it is not comprehensible in its current form. Or rather, the text is comprehensible, if only most of those extraneous URLs were removed! Alternatively, the article could be expanded, so that those URLs were actually cited in the body of the text, which would be just great. --FeralOink (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I have boldly removed a lot of external links from this page. The events and browsers links don't seem necessary, likewise with the presentation section, if there is relevant information in the presentations then it could be included in the main text and cited appropriately. I moved the projects bit to the main text and converted the links to refs, more information could be added here. I removed all external links from the datasets bit and moved the remaining wikilinks to the main body. Finally I moved some links from the further reading bit to external links section and separated further reading, I think this still needs thinned out a bit more though.
If anyone thinks any of the removed links are important enough to be included then they could be re-added as long as their importance is justified per external links guidelines. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The article needs a better introduction. It is too technical and unless you are well-versed in computer jargon, you can't even understand the first sentence. The writing style is too cryptic.
Wikipedia should serve the general public. Otherwise, it might as well fold up and we go back to reading academic papers in peer-reviewed journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)