This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Data model article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I removed the following text, see here, which was added both here and in the data modeling by User:EddyVanderlinden:
I removed this text about W3C, RDF, OWL because it doesn't explain much itself, and doesn't explain the link with data modeling. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Mdd (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I have undone the change in the lead sentence for the simple reason that it was not wikified. In a high-frequently viewed article like this it should be. Now I don't appose to a change in the lead sentence but it does have to fit the Wikipedia rules about lay out. Now the current article states:
Now a new lead sentence is proposed by user:63.117.201.120:
Now one of the rules is that the article has to start with the subject. So it could become:
Now for me as a not-native American I don't know what the expression "to document data with rigor" means? -- Mdd (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just been revisiting this article after several years' absence. A surprising lack of recent talk?
The article starts reasonably well: sections 1, 2, 3 seem to provide a reasonably logical and consistent exposition.
After that it completely falls apart. Sections 4 and 5 are an absolute rag-bag. There's a whole sequence of 20 or so 3-or-4 paragraph sections each of which makes reasonable sense on its own, but none of which seem to fit into any coherent narrative for the article as a whole. Frankly, the article would be better without them.
Mhkay (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether these really constitute alternative data models or whether they can be understood to be subsumed by some already listed.