FW: Re: A new Semantic Web logo?

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