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

Re: Introducing Vocabularies of a Friend (VOAF)

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:43:18 -0500
Message-ID: <4D3F5206.5060003@openlinksw.com>
To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
CC: Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
On 1/25/11 5:32 PM, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> 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

Your LOV letter to all Ontology and Vocabulary creators re. past, 
present, and future :-)

Kingsley
> ...
>
> Bernard
>
>
>
> 2011/1/25 Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com 
> <mailto: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>  <mailto: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 <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Mondeca
> 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
> Web: http://www.mondeca.com
> Blog: http://mondeca.wordpress.com
> ----------------------------------------------------


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2011 22:43:49 UTC

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