Talk:Ontotext GraphDB

Publishing the draft
The article seems quite well annotated and notable. I've helped clarify that by moving some text around and adding more references. --Cryout (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Entry level
To me the article seems highly unapproachable. With over 30 years in IT and active in many of its areas I would expect to be able to directly digest at least the first few sentences of a description provided in an encyclopedia. But here we jump right into the middle of a rather arcane (although quickly developing) side field. I cannot even imagine how the current text would look to a person who is not very deep into our field but still wants to get a grasp. For that reason I would highly recommend to introduce the software in a different, non-technical way from the pov of somebody who might want to use it, basically first adressing "What does it do ?" and "What is that good for ?" before looking into the technical side and starting to use technical terms.

Now since this is not the first topic where I write such a thing I also know the typical answers, mainly that there are links which the reader can follow to understand all the terms used and then from there re-read the text .. which does not work because all the other articles are in the same style and leave the reader with either having to become an IT specialist or to understand nothing. Which leads to the next defense - If we were to write for non-professionals we would have to re-write a lot of things already in the WP in other locations. Well, imho firstly it is the task of an encyclopedia to make things understandable for non-professionals since professionals would normally not use an encyclopedia to study their field. So alas, yes, it may be necessary for give short summaries here and there to help the reader. And secondly it is not even necessary in all cases. Often a change of style and pov is enough, just using normal language and adressing real-life aspects instead of the technical side may be enough. JB. --92.195.3.7 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I think that this article should be merged into Ontotext. Both articles are pretty short, Ontotext is essentially only notable for the database and their other product, both of which could easily be discussed in its article. Without these the Ontotext article doesn't have much to say, and this article is lacking some context. Probably a new section could be created in the Ontotext article and the content could be pasted verbatim Mrfoogles (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging people by policy: Mrfoogles (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like the right way forward. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Doing the merge: can be undone without too much difficulty Mrfoogles (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)