Re: FW: Re: A new Semantic Web logo?

I have forwarded these to the comm team, to look into the policy issue

Ivan

Benjamin Nowack wrote:
> 
> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf