- From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@semsol.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:10:55 +0200
- To: public-sweo-ig@w3.org
FWD'd from the swig list. The thread starts at [1], and despite the negative tone on semantic-web, it looks like people would like to use the logo, which is a good sign. Maybe we can ask the Comm team to change the usage restrictions a little bit. Benji [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Oct/0081.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org> >From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> >Subject: Re: A new Semantic Web logo? >Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:41:45 +0200 >To: bnowack@semsol.com > >Benjamin, > >Thanks for the background. This is much appreciated. > >Here are some concrete gripes I have with the usage policy. > >1. It should be allowed to use the logos to link to particular >deployments of the technologies they represent. It should be allowed >to use the SPARQL version of the logo to link to a SPARQL query form. >It should be allowed to use the RDF version of the logo to link to an >RDF variant of the current page. > >2. It should be allowed to use a tiny version of the cube symbol >independently from the other parts of the logo, as a design element >to represent “a resource” or “the Semantic Web”. For example, imagine >a list of search results, each of which is RDF-described (per >embedded RDFa, perhaps). I would like to place a tiny cube next to >each result, to indicate that viewing the current page in an RDF- >capable browser would provide data about these things. As another >example, the tiny cube would be an excellent element for toolbar- >style icons -- it's obvious how to make icons for “export to the >Semantic Web”, “import from the Semantic Web”, “search on the >Semantic Web”, lots of possibilities. > >3. It should be allowed to remix the logo, for example to create >logos for specific applications, technologies or projects. Just look >at [1] -- I cannot imagine it's in W3C's interest to inhibit such >displays of creativity. > >I would appreciate if SWEO and the W3C Communications team would >reconsider and modify the policy to make uses such as the examples >above possible. > >Best, >Richard > >[1] http://www.siatec.net/grddl/grddl_01.png > > > >On 12 Oct 2007, at 15:01, Benjamin Nowack wrote: > >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Let me try to explain the process we went through, and I'll also try >> to address some of the usage-related concerns (Ian, please correct >> me if I'm wrong). This is going to become a long mail, I fear.. >> >> Note: I'm just an invited geek to the SWEO group. I'm neither a >> W3C member nor a member of the communications team. I can't speak for >> them, but I'm happy to collect any constructive feedback and forward >> it. (The chosen SemWeb logo isn't even one of the proposals I made, >> so don't think I'm defending it for personal reasons.) >> >> First: Don't panic, please. The logos are up for two days now, after >> more than six months of fights, creating drafts, and gathering >> feedback from several W3C groups. I don't agree with the current >> usage wording either, but we tried to push things quite a bit from >> the SWEO side, so I assume that's why the Comm team kept the >> guidelines more restrictive for now. The overall objective is to >> develop a branding and marketing strategy for the Semantic Web, as >> developed by the various W3C groups and the SemWeb community. >> If there are issues with how the visual elements are supposed to >> be used, then let's just discuss and solve them. Something like >> the RDF icon usge ("if appropriate, link to ...") for example sounds >> quite good to me. Anyway, it's still *very* early (look at the sw >> activity homepage, even they didn't properly incorporate the >> logo yet and get rid of the non-transparent white background). >> >> The SemWeb logo is *not* a replacement for the great RDF icon >> or other (future) technology logos. It's a technology-independent >> addition. And it makes sense to keep the SemWeb logo separate >> from the technologies. One of the first reactions on this list was >> that people wanted to replace their RDF download icons with the >> SemWeb one. That's what should *not* happen. That's not what >> it's for. >> >> It could make sense, however, to use the semweb icon as an >> identifier for extended functionality, e.g. for semantically >> enhanced links. That's one of the usage questions I had, and the >> Comm team said, that'd most probably be fine. So, let's talk and >> clarify, not scream. Give them some time to align the branding >> plans with our suggestions. >> >> And, we are all so gifted when it comes to nit-picking, let's >> see what the "usage" paragraph says *exactly*: >> "without requesting permission [...] provided that [...]". >> >> So, this doesn't exclude other uses, it just plays it safe for >> now and asks for confirmation, which I think is fair, given >> the amount of work that went into the whole branding effort >> (of which the icons are just one part). >> >> >> Some background info for the whole branding effort: >> >> We tried to create a logo/button/seal for SWEO-recommended sites >> back in march. That quickly evolved into the idea of creating a >> logo for the whole SWEO group, plus various sub-logos for the >> different sub-projects within SWEO. After two months or so of >> proposals and finally reaching sort-of-consensus just within >> SWEO, we were approached by the Comm team which suggested to >> extend the effort and create something for the whole SemWeb >> initiative instead. We sighed (but also saw the utility) >> and started from scratch. >> >> We really wanted to accelerate things a little, and yes, we >> knew that doing this behind SWEO doors would cause negative >> reactions. (The process wasn't *that* closed actually, I pinged >> several working groups, asking for feedback about whether we >> should create technology-specific logos, a single, generic one, >> or if they wanted a combination. I only received responses from >> those groups that had people with design skill on board, and >> they were basically happy with us taking the lead, as long as >> this would reduce delays.) I personally favoured a more open >> process when we started, but if I learned one thing in the last >> months, then it's that everyone is very good at criticizing once >> the work is done (by others, of course), and that you can waste >> an endless amount of time (it's design, there are infinite options) >> coming up with yet another design proposal and never reaching >> consensus. (Bernard's comment is a perfect example, although the >> SWEO members were always mannered enough to not get insulting.) >> >> Bottom line: We knew that it'd be impossible to make everyone >> happy anyway. So, it felt just more reasonable and practical to >> leave the job to the pros. And we were lucky to have them (they >> are still so hard to find in the semweb community). And the logo >> is really a nice one. We saw quite a number of alternative >> proposals, and I'm confident that the selected logo is going >> to help us successfully promote the Semantic Web idea. >> >> Unleash your data / >> Think out of the box / >> There's more inside of the building blocks / >> ... >> >> >> Benji >> >> Congrats, you've reached the end of this mail. >> >> -- >> Benjamin Nowack >> http://bnode.org/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 15:11:10 UTC