- From: David Wood <dwood@softwarememetics.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 15:51:18 -0400
- To: Ben Adida <ben@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, "'public-rdf-in-xhtml task force'" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Hi all, I am *horrible* at naming things, but I like the ideas regarding a name which stresses extensibility, and a relationship to HTML authors. eXtensible HTML Metadata (XHM) comes to mind, but see the caveat above. Regards, Dave On 8 Apr2006, at 15:46, Ben Adida wrote: > > > Mark, > > Excellent points. I particularly like having a tag line. > > I disagree that the name is meaningless, though. We don't have a > marketing budget, so having a name that is easy to remember, easy > to spell, and easy to search for is fairly important. We also want > to ensure that the name is well targeted to our audience. On both > of these fronts, RDF/A has issues. The "/" remains a big issue. And > the "RDF" will mislead HTML authors into thinking that this is not > targeted at them. We should consider a name that will be a bit more > attractive to HTML authors. That doesn't mean the ones I suggested > are good, I'm just saying we should take some time to think about > this. > > As for the tag line.... of course I like the one Mark suggests :) > But again, I wonder if it connotes the wrong thing to HTML authors > who have, for better or worse, been scared away from the "semantic > web." I'm thinking "bridging the clickable and semantic web" might > be best for the semantic web audience, not the HTML authors. > > Can we find a way to ease HTML authors into it a bit more? Maybe by > highlighting how this is different from Microformats? Extensibility > comes to mind. Modularity comes to mind. Independence of publishers > is also a big deal - It's not about schemas approved by a central > authority. > > I don't have a good suggestion yet, but maybe this will spark more > ideas from Mark :) > > -Ben > > On Apr 8, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Mark Birbeck wrote: > >> >> Hello all, >> >> In response to Ben's excellent 'kick-start' of a marketing plan, >> I'd like to >> say a few things on the naming issue. My comments are in response >> to general >> points that that have been made in meetings and on the list, but I >> won't try >> to find all the references since the things I'm saying are pretty >> general. >> >> >>> 1) A New Name >>> I support the idea of picking a new name that is more >>> marketable than 'RDF/A'. This is our last opportunity to >>> think of a better name before we have to stick with it. The >>> name should attempt to convey some of the following concepts: >>> HTML, web, extensible, embedded. >>> >>> Some Ideas to get us started (yes, some of these are >>> strawmen, but strawman-status is in the eye of the beholder): >>> HERMES - Html Embedded Rdf Metadata with ExtenSibility XIM - >>> Xtensible Interoperable Metadata WebMIM - Web Meta >>> Information Module WebFormats >>> >>> (please submit more ideas!) >> >> >> SHOULD WE CHANGE THE NAME? >> >> I have to say I disagree with renaming. Don't get me wrong, I >> don't think >> RDF/A is a great name. But naming is such a subjective thing that >> I will >> happily take bets that a discussion about names on this list will >> be a total >> waste of time. >> >> So, my view is that although I have no problems with a name >> change, I think >> it will take up too much of our time to discuss, especially when >> we are >> unlikely to come up with anything. >> >> >> DO WE *NEED* TO CHANGE THE NAME, ANYWAY? >> >> The thing about names is that it really does not matter: people >> happily buy >> and rent 'DVDs'; they discuss whether they need more 'RAM'; some >> years ago >> my mum told me that she had decided to upgrade her computer to 'a >> 486'; >> people lean across the table in the pub, pick up a friend's phone, >> and say >> "Oh, you've got the new 3250". >> >> None of this is to say that if someone came up with a fantastic, >> descriptive >> name it wouldn't get my vote--I'm not saying it *must* be called >> "xcmm3" or >> something obtuse, just for the sake of it. But unless the name is >> light-years ahead of "RDF/A" I don't see the point--picking on the >> strawmen >> "HERMES" and "XIM" for example, they don't actually convey >> anything about >> what we're doing. >> >> >> SO I DON'T CARE ABOUT MARKETING? >> >> Far from it. But the reason I want to sound an air of caution is >> because >> what often happens is people start to believe that something will >> *only* be >> successful if it has a funky name, and I don't want us to fall >> into this >> trap. If the technology of 'RDF/A' is successful it will be >> because the >> examples are clear, the use cases are broad, the requirement is >> widely >> present, early adopters are vocal, and so on. That's 'real' >> marketing and >> gives us the best chance of success. If we achieve success it >> won't be down >> to the name. >> >> >> THE 'ELEVATOR PITCH' >> >> Whilst the name of our technology will make close to zero >> difference to its >> adoption, the one-liner--so-called elevator pitch--could. Putting >> on an old >> Disney video for my son to watch the other day, I was surprised to >> see that >> one of the opening adverts was from Disney itself telling you how >> you could >> now get all of its films on DVD, and they took up far less space >> on your >> shelves than videos! >> >> I don't recall if that was the standard way of extolling the >> virtues of DVDs >> when they were new, and of course it sounds laughably dated now >> that DVDs >> are so commonplace. But it's a good illustration of how the name >> is less >> significant than the benefits that something offers. >> >> So for me the thing to 'capture' is finding that sentence--in >> other words, >> how much shelf-space does RDF/A take up? >> >> One strong candidate is something Ben said ages ago which is the >> idea of: >> >> "bridging the clickable and semantic webs" >> >> The key thing about the 'elevator pitch' is not that it conveys >> *all* of our >> ideas, but that it gives us a constant base, a foundation, onto which >> everything else is layered. So we know that RDF/A is 'more' than >> just making >> clickable links semantic, but we can explain all of that on the >> new site. >> What we're looking for here is something that (a) keeps us focused >> when we >> plan to write about it, do presentations on it, write tutorials or >> give >> examples on it, and (b) is the thing that we always ensure people >> take away >> about RDF/A, even if they take away nothing else. >> >> I would say that of all the things that RDF/A can do, at this >> moment in time >> [*] it is the ability to derive semantic information from links >> that have >> been placed in a 'normal' document, that is probably key. I think >> this >> 'base' idea contains within it everything about 'embedding', using >> current >> mark-up, ease of authoring, unlimited formats (not the four >> microformats), >> decentralisation (rather than the centralised nature of >> microformats), and >> so on. >> >> So even if we were to continue with a renaming exercise, I'd strongly >> recommend that the process would have to begin with finding this >> one-liner >> first--we need to know what we're selling before we can name it. >> >> [*] I say "this moment in time" only because there is no reason >> why the >> 'pitch' might not change in the future and some other feature get >> brought to >> the fore. >> >> >> SUMMARY >> >> Success is not going be based on the name, but on having a clear >> message >> about what the *purpose* of RDF/A is and what it lets you do that you >> couldn't do before. Getting bogged down in naming is not a great >> use of >> time. >> >> We do however, need to agree on our 'elevator pitch'. If a name >> flows from >> that then great, but the one-liner is crucial. My vote goes for >> something >> like: >> >> "RDF/A bridges the clickable and semantic webs." >> >> "RDF/A: bridging the clickable and semantic webs." >> >> (I really like the second one, and I think "Bridging the clickable >> and >> semantic webs" would be a good strapline for the forthcoming web >> site--it >> conveys a nice active sense, since we know that these two webs >> *need* to be >> bridged, and we also know that up until now they haven't been, and >> we know >> that we have more work to do.) >> >> Hopefully Ben hasn't trademarked these, since my backup suggestion >> is not so >> good: >> >> "RDF/A takes up less room on your shelves." >> >> Regards, >> >> Mark >> >> >> Mark Birbeck >> CEO >> x-port.net Ltd. >> >> e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net >> t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 >> b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/ >> w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/ >> >> Download our XForms processor from >> http://www.formsPlayer.com/ >> >> >> > >
Received on Saturday, 8 April 2006 19:51:27 UTC