RE: Continuation of Name & Marketing Discussion

For the spec, I would strongly suggest that the word "semantic" be a
part of the name, since it is the most descriptive and accurately
encompassing adjective that I know for what RDF/A provides.  It also
implicitly suggests that this language allows your documents to be part
of the Semantic Web.

David Booth



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Mark Birbeck
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:49 AM
> To: 'public-rdf-in-xhtml task force'
> Subject: RE: Continuation of Name & Marketing Discussion
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Some ideas that are more along the lines of categories of 
> names rather than specific proposals:
> 
>  * what we're doing allows you to publish *your* metadata
>    really easily;
> 
>  * what we're doing is adding extra meaning to your
>    mark-up.
> 
> The first category could have names along the lines of 'I do 
> something', or 'my something'. So we could perhaps play on 
> the 'i...' family of names and have iMeta, iData, iTag, etc. 
> (None of these are free as direct domain names though, 
> although my-data.org is.)
> 
> The second category would give you something more descriptive 
> like 'intelligent mark-up', 'smart mark-up', 'layered inline 
> mark-up', etc.
> 
> There are surely other categories that are relevant, but 
> whichever you went for, it would be great if the resulting 
> word was something easily memorable and distinctive, 
> independent of what it stands for. For example, 'iTag' is 
> descriptive as it stands, but 'layered inline mark-up' might 
> become LIME, opening the way to nice design, etc. 
> 'intelligent mark-up' might be become iMarkup, which plays to 
> both categories. (iMarkup.org is free.)
> 
> This latter approach of making the 'i' stand for both 'I do 
> something' and 'intelligent' gives other ways of bringing the 
> two categories together. So say we decided to call the approach:
> 
>   "Inline mark-up tagging"
> 
> you could then abbreviate this to:
> 
>   I'm tagging
> 
> which is nice and participatory, as well as being active. A 
> site name that flows from this could be:
> 
>   imtagging.org
> 
> (All versions of this domain name are available.)
> 
> I'm not enamoured of any of these, as it happens--I'm just 
> more trying to play around with what exactly it is that we're 
> describing.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Ben Adida
> > Sent: 18 April 2006 15:26
> > To: public-rdf-in-xhtml task force
> > Subject: Continuation of Name & Marketing Discussion
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > In the telecon today, we talked about the marketing proposal [1].
> > 
> > We agreed on Mark's proposal that we need to think about two
> > things separately
> > 
> > a) the name for the marketing effort in general, which should
> > be accessible, cool, not too technical
> > b) the name of the underlying spec, which may remain RDF/A.
> > 
> > So far, for (a), we have a few options:
> > 	- metalink / Metal Ink (though domain name issues there)
> > 	- structured HTML / shtml (though unfortunate
> > abbreviation issues
> > there)
> > 
> > 	We need more suggestions!
> > 
> > For (b), the underlying spec, there are no strong feelings,
> > though we discussed the idea of removing the '/' which is 
> > causing some headache with search engines.
> > 
> > The proposal on the table for (b) is "RDFa"
> > 
> > So, let's think about this some more, and let's discuss over
> > the list any new ideas we come up with!
> > 
> > -Ben
> > 
> > 
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/
> > 2006Apr/0008
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2006 16:25:03 UTC