W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Best Practice for Renaming OWL Vocabulary Elements

From: glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 06:35:38 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTinsrCZtCPk=P-BOUO-DBo2ZvLdHYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>, glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com>, Ryan Kohl <ryanckohl@gmail.com>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
> If the opinions dominating this discussion are
> representative of the community, then the
> Semantic Web is bound to failure, because
> you seem to completely ignore
>
> 1. adoption issues, in particular ergonomics
> and cognitive aspects,

If it's me you mean by that, then a) I'm the antithesis of a
representative of the Semantic Web community, and b) I'm not ignoring
ergo-cognitive concerns, I'm *driven* by them. My point is very
specifically not that people should be looking at numerical codes, but
that in the case of data-graph representation and querying, people
shouldn't be looking at "codes" at all. To me semi-human-readable
isn't good enough, either.

URLs are a great example: nobody wants humans to have to type IP
addresses. But neither should we really want people to have to type
URLs. And indeed, for all but the most trivial site-level URLs, people
mostly don't. They send links (increasingly via URL shorteners), or
they use Google.
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2011 10:38:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:28 UTC