W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2007

Re: A new Semantic Web logo?

From: M. David Peterson <m.david@xmlhacker.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:07:31 -0600
To: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, semantic-web@w3.org, "Linking Open Data" <linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <op.tz1retrtgb2xtc@m-david-petersons-computer.local>

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:53:38 -0600, Bernard Vatant  
<bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote:

> The blue triangle was just beginning to be a strong identifier, not to  
> say the flag of the Linking Open Data movement, with clear semantics :  
> click here to get RDF data.

Maybe to you, but you're already sold on the semantic web.  To the rest of  
the WWW who either don't completely grok or simply do not agree with the  
overall approach the original identifier either has no meaning  
what-so-ever, or invokes a sense of "Oooohhh... RDF.  Nevermind.  Too  
complicated." or something to that effect.

> It's used in DBpedia, it's used in Tabulator interface and so on.

Wouldn't they all point to the same set of image files?  So change the  
image files.  the changes will automagically propagate.

> I like nodes and links,

I don't.  It complex, cumbersome, and forces you to wonder what on earth  
it is and what it is supposed to represent.  Not everyone "gets" the  
meaning and purpose of the semantic web, as simple and straight forward as  
it might seem to everyone on this list.

> and a box, even half-open, is the last thing I would have thought about  
> as a symbol for the SW.

The world thinks of the web as documents, and no matter how hard you try  
to convince people that the beauty of the web in general, and in  
particular the semantic web, is that there are no walls nor barriers nor  
other obstructions that stand in the way of them linking from one document  
to the next, people view things as being structured walls and boxes of  
data.  The new design is simple, and while it may not say to someone "this  
is all about attaching meaninful meta-data to seemingly unrelated  
documents" neither did the original image unless you knew ahead of time  
that's what it was meant to invoke.

> Who had this silly idea?

To be honest, and with all due respect, I think this was an absolutely  
brilliant decision.  The Semantic Web group needs to shake away from the  
"Ooohhh... RDF.  Nevermind." mentality while at the same time allow people  
who know nothing about the semantic web to make a simple association to  
something completely "new" and "exciting".

re: the decision to just do it w/o gaining feedback first:  Do you  
honestly believe that if the question came up on this list suggesting the  
logo needed an upgrade, what that logo should look like and/or what people  
thought of the new design that anything beyond what has already taking  
place would have been the result.

It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is permission.

And the logo needed an upgrade.  It was doing more harm than good.  At  
least that's my opinion. No doubt you have yours.


M. David Peterson
http://mdavid.name | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354 |  
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 19:07:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:06 UTC