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

Or maybe I should have suggested: XHTML-S

> From: Booth, David (W3C Fellow - Boston) 
> 
> 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 18:54:51 UTC