Talk:Semantic publishing

Ontology link

Ontology link is pointing to the philosophical defination, kindly point it to thw ontology computer science page --218.248.37.146 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. -- Beland (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

See Talk:Semantic Web

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) 11:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ~~support~~ a merge and redirect into Linked Data. The differences are not sufficiently disjoint to warrant separate articles. I agree on the broad scope of "semantic publishing", which, rather than justify its place in the "applications" sphere of Semantic Web topics (see the series box at the foot of the article), supports its placement at the sub-topic level. It is at this level that the Linked Data article appears. According to the introductions of both articles:

"Linked Data is used to describe a method of exposing, sharing, and connecting data via dereferenceable URIs on the Web" and

"Semantic publishing ... refers to publishing information on the web as documents accompanied by semantic markup."

'Data' and 'documents' are analogous components of both definitions. 'exposing, sharing, connecting' and 'publishing' are also analogous. And the 'dereferenceable URIs' are 'semantic markup'.

At a glance, I might have understood each article, by their respective titles, to address a data format (linked data) and a delivery vehicle (semantic publishing), but the delivery on the web is trivial (bytes/"files" over http) and everything lies in the data format, making the two synonymous (which is what the content of both articles reveals).

Finally, based on the length of both articles and the scope of the subject matter they address, they could easily complement one another in making a good-sized article that more completely addresses the singular (IMHO) topic: semantic publishing = linked data.

What about Metadata publishing? These three articles all list the same XML, RSS, etc structured/semantic data formats... are they just different lenses? I guess I'm willing to keep them separate if we can identify what distinguishes each. Heck, why not merge them all into Semantic Web? The only thing keeping us from that is the possibility of semantic data living offline...

–Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 15:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links to be fixed

The pointers to web2express.org aren't valid. (I might have removed them, except that I don't understand enough about the content on this page to figure out if it's just a fix or a removal required). Daviding (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Here are some examples that could be explained in the article:

More detail in section 3.2.2 (entitled "semantic publishing") of http://hdl.handle.net/1813/14150 , a white paper on scholarly communication in chemistry Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another is XMP-enriched PDFs, blog post 1, blog post 2 Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

I've been asked to comment on the NPOV tag.

Currently, the article is hyping semantic publishing as revolutionary. What about the people who think it's a vacuous buzzword or over-hyped or sounds good but are skeptical it will ever amount to much or the people who want it to happen but find that it's had trouble getting started as quickly as they might have liked?

The article also does some telling ("Although semantic publishing is not specific to the Web") but doesn't show us. What media, specifically, are envisioned for application of semantic publishing, other than the Web? -- Beland (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]