Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semantic technology

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-encyclopedic and ill-referenced essay. Many attempts to focus it over the years. Ottawahitech dePRODed it without addressing the concerns. David Gerard (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A WP:BEFORE AfD nomination style search shows shows about 6,000 hits in GBooks and over 7,700 hits in GScholar. There is a multiyear conference devoted to the topic, for which the papers are gathered and published in book form by Springer-Verlag, e.g [1]. Among sources found after a brief search include a tutorial at a conference Semantic Technologies: AI Strikes Back and the survey Semantic web technologies in pervasive computing: A survey and research roadmap. Browsing GScholar shows a lot more reliable sources still. This topic seems highly notable per WP:GNG. The article is not well-developed and could use better sourcing, but the potential for improvement is there, per WP:POTENTIAL, and the article has surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A highly notable topic and an improvable article suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While "AFD is not cleanup", at present cutting it down to well-cited encyclopedic shape suggests WP:TNT - David Gerard (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mark viking: I'm sure people use this term, but how does this topic differ exactly from Semantic Web (or Knowledge representation and reasoning)? The Semantic Technologies: AI Strikes Back page says that "we introduce the suite of the most popular Semantic Technologies—including RDF(S), OWL, and SPARQL", which are the cornerstones of the Semantic Web. —Ruud 17:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good question. Semantic technology is the general set of algorithms/approaches that use semantic information as part of their processing. The Semantic Web (SW) includes a particular set of semantic algorithms/approaches specialized for representing (semantic) information on the web. Sources like [2] and [3] seem to agree. Examples of semantic technologies that aren't necessarily part of the SW include bioinformatics ontologies like the Human Phenotype Ontology, storage techniques like graph databases and natural language processing work that involves semantic processing. Semantic technologies are a part of Knowledge representation and reasoning, but they are not equivalent--semantics is different, for instance, than reasoning.

If there is a better name for non-SW-specific semantic information processing than "semantic technology", I'm not opposed to renaming or merging with a better article. But the topic is notable. --Mark viking (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The term sems to be notable, tho it remains open to question whether this is really a distinct subject ha should be merged. The series of conferences is a subseries of the gigantic Springer series, Lecture notes in Computer science ,and therefore makes a significant claim to notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Google books results suggest that it's indeed a field of study. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.