Talk:Linked data
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Can someone please keep the diagram up-to-date? You can get the original atRichard Cyganiak's website. --Tom Morris (talk)14:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how the notability of this article can be questioned? It was the main topic ofTim Berners-Lee'sTED_(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 byUser:AnmaFinotera, and this is just bubbling over from theDBpedia notability discussion.
gromgull (talk)11:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bizer, C. (2009)."The Emerging Web of Linked Data".Intelligent Systems, IEEE.24 (5):87–92.ISSN 1541-1672.
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 theWikipedia 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)[reply]
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.— Precedingunsigned comment added bySebastianHellmann (talk •contribs)22:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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—Precedingunsigned comment added by109.84.175.213 (talk)20:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was:page moved.Vegaswikian (talk)23:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PerWP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") andWP: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)09:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How come this is categorized underBuzzwords? Linked Data is an official umbrella-term for anumber of standards by theW3C, 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 theBuzzwords category.Pumba lt (talk)14:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 schemaDemo 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 thereIS 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 fewbona fide References! --FeralOink (talk)17:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)This was the duplicate:[reply]
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
At present, it is noted as Reference #1. It didn't need to be repeated in the "For further reading" section. --FeralOink (talk)17:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are only four (or five?) actual references in this article. Meanwhile, there areDOZENS 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 isHIGHLY NOTABLE subject matter! But it is not comprehensible in its current form. Or rather, thetext 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)[reply]
I haveboldly 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 perexternal links guidelines.Sarahj2107 (talk)16:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by84.24.63.85 (talk)05:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ERCIM News special theme edition might be usefully incorporated into this article.[1] Best wishes.RobbieIanMorrison (talk)15:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A medical reference that might also be useful was recently published in the yearbook of medical informatics:[2] Cheers.Xicouto (talk)09:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References
.svg){kind=icon}
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help){{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links onLinked data. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)11:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doeshttp uri in this article simply meanURL ? (If so, the language seems unnecessarily esoteric.)Cesiumfrog (talk)04:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect5-star Open Data. Please participate inthe redirect discussion if you wish to do so.signed,Rosguilltalk21:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]