Talk:DAML-S

who uses daml-s compare to other framework usages
Give me this prompt in improved form so that an llm would provide the analysis of the frameworks as a mediawiki markup page.
...

Chat-GPT5:

You are a technical writer and Semantic Web researcher.

Task: Produce a neutral, well-sourced MediaWiki article that analyzes who uses DAML-S (the early-2000s Semantic Web Services ontology) and compares its adoption to other service-description/discovery frameworks.

Strict requirements:
- Scope clarity: This is about DAML-S/OWL-S (Semantic Web Services), not the modern “Daml” smart-contract language by Digital Asset. Include a hatnote to avoid confusion.
- Output format: Return MediaWiki markup only (no Markdown or HTML, no surrounding commentary).
- Tone: Encyclopedic, neutral point of view, verifiable claims with citations.

Article structure (use these exact section headings unless a better Wikipedia-style structure suggests itself):
- Title: “DAML-S adoption and comparison with other service-description frameworks”
- Lead section: 2–4 sentences summarizing DAML-S, its historical context, and the high-level comparison of adoption versus other frameworks.
- Hatnote: “Not to be confused with Daml (smart contract language).”
- Sections:
  == Overview ==
  Provide a concise description of DAML-S (purpose, time frame, relation to DAML+OIL and OWL-S), and its status (largely historical/academic).
  == History ==
  Cover origins (DARPA DAML program), key institutions (e.g., SRI, Stanford), transition to OWL-S, and timeline milestones.
  == Adoption and usage ==
  Provide quantified indicators (with dates) of who used DAML-S (primarily research groups, DARPA-funded prototypes), and note current practical usage levels.
  == Comparison with other frameworks ==
  Create subsections comparing adoption and practical use of:
  === OWL-S ===
  === WSMO ===
  === SAWSDL ===
  === WSDL/SOAP (UDDI/BPEL) ===
  === REST/JSON with OpenAPI (Swagger) ===
  === JSON-LD and Hydra ===
  === gRPC with Protocol Buffers ===
  === GraphQL ===
  For each, discuss typical domains, historical and current adoption, and relation to Semantic Web ideas.
  == Quantitative indicators ==
  Include a comparison table with rows for metrics such as:
  - Publication/citation counts (e.g., Google Scholar for seminal specs/papers)
  - Presence in standards (W3C/ISO/OASIS/OMG status)
  - Number of GitHub repositories/tools (indicative, with methodology)
  - Stack Overflow questions/tags (if any)
  - Inclusion in major industry surveys (e.g., Stack Overflow Developer Survey, RedMonk, Gartner mentions)
  - Notable production deployments or case studies (count and examples)
  Columns should cover: DAML-S, OWL-S, WSDL/SOAP, REST/OpenAPI, WSMO, SAWSDL, JSON-LD/Hydra, gRPC/Protobuf, GraphQL.
  For each numeric value, include an “as of” date and a citation; if precise data are unavailable, provide a reasoned estimate or state “no reliable data found,” and explain the method briefly in a note.
  == Notable projects and case studies ==
  Summarize named projects with citations (e.g., DARPA-funded prototypes, EU research projects).
  == Criticism and limitations ==
  Discuss reasons for limited adoption (tooling, complexity, industry preferences), with sources.
  == See also ==
  Link to closely related topics (OWL-S, WSMO, SAWSDL, WSDL, REST, JSON-LD, Hydra).
  == References ==
  Use  footnotes and include  here.
  == External links ==
  Official specs, W3C notes, project pages.
  == Provenance ==
  List the initiating prompt text (“who uses daml-s compare to other framework usages”) and date for documentation.

Sourcing and verification standards:
- Use high-quality, verifiable sources: W3C notes, DARPA program pages, SRI/Stanford project pages, peer-reviewed papers (ACM/IEEE), well-known surveys (Stack Overflow Developer Survey), and authoritative books. Avoid unsourced claims.
- For numeric indicators, include explicit dates (use the As of MM YYYY template where appropriate) and describe the method if the number is derived (e.g., “Google Scholar query for ‘DAML-S’ returned N results As of January 2025”).
- Do not fabricate citations. If a figure cannot be verified, say so and provide a qualitative comparison instead.

Formatting rules (MediaWiki):
- Start with a short description: Template:Short description
- Include the hatnote: Template:Hatnote
- Use == == for section headers and === === for subsections.
- Use a wikitable for the comparison (e.g., {| class="wikitable" … |}).
- Use  for inline citations and  in the References section.

Deliverable:
- Output only the final MediaWiki markup article, ready to paste into a MediaWiki editor, adhering to the above scope, structure, and sourcing requirements.
```