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