RE: Save shelfspace with RDF/A [was RE: The RDF/A Marketing Site]

Name suggestion: HTML-S  (The S stands for "Semantic".)

I also think a good, descriptive name can help significantly.

David Booth

P.S. This reminds me of an experience I had at AT&T Bell Labs years ago.
AT&T was preparing to launch the next version of a product whose
original name I have now forgotten-I'll just call it "Foo" for the
moment--so they ran an employee contest to come up with the best name.
Many creative and interesting names were submitted.  The winner:
"Foo-II"


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Wood
> Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 3:51 PM
> To: Ben Adida
> Cc: Mark Birbeck; 'public-rdf-in-xhtml task force'
> Subject: Re: Save shelfspace with RDF/A [was RE: The RDF/A 
> Marketing Site]
> 
> 
> 
> 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 Monday, 10 April 2006 18:34:21 UTC