W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Introducing Vocabularies of a Friend (VOAF)

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:32:50 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=ixM5trE86nJAOy8dU5-v9rRMj2W5=MJTx_z5a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
Hello all

Points taken. Somehow changed the headings and itroduction at
http://www.mondeca.com/foaf/voaf-doc.html
to make more explicit what is is about (hopefully).

I did not change (yet) either VOAF acronym or namespace. To tell the truth,
my first idea was LOV for Linked Open Vocabularies, but I guess some would
have found that pun confusing too.
Sorry to keep on pushing puns and portmanteau(s?), from the "Semantopic Map"
(back in 2001, maybe some folks here remember it, it's offline now) to
"hubjects" ... Maybe it's not a good idea after all.

So if I sum up the feedback so far
- there is no question the dataset is worth it
- the introduction is a bit confusing (changed a couple of things, let's see
if it's better or worse)
- the name is totally confusing for some not-so-dumb people, so go figure
waht happens to not-so-smart ones :)

I'm open to all suggestions to change to something better. Is LOV a good
idea?
Other proposals :

LV or LVoc : Linked Vocabularies
WOV : Web of Vocabularies
...

Bernard



2011/1/25 Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

>  On 1/25/11 11:59 AM, William Waites wrote:
>
> * [2011-01-25 11:21:45 -0500] Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> <kidehen@openlinksw.com> écrit:
>
> ] Hmm. Is it the Name or Description that's important?
> ]
> ] But what about discerning meaning from the VOAF graph?
>
> Humans looking at documents and trying to understand a system
> do so in a very different way from machines. While what you
> suggest might be strictly true according to the way RDF and
> formal logic work, it isn't the way humans work (otherwise
> the strong AI project of the past half-century might have
> succeeded by now). So we should try arrange things in a way
> that is both consistent with what the machines want and as
> easy as possible for humans to understand. That Hugh, an
> expert in the domain, had trouble figuring it out due to
> poetic references to well known concepts suggests that there
> is some room for improvement.
>
> Cheers,
> -w
>
>
> Yes, but does a human say: you lost me at VOAF due to FOAF? I think they do
> read the docs, at least the opening paragraph :-)
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen	
> President & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>
>
-- 
Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Vocabulary & Data Engineering
Tel:       +33 (0) 971 488 459
Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
----------------------------------------------------
Mondeca
3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:    http://www.mondeca.com
Blog:    http://mondeca.wordpress.com
----------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2011 22:33:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:31 UTC