Re: Introducing Vocabularies of a Friend (VOAF)

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 1/25/11 5:32 PM, Bernard Vatant wrote:

Hello all

Points taken. Somehow changed the headings and itroduction at 
http://www.mondeca.com/foaf/voaf-doc.html

to make more explicit what is is about (hopefully).

I did not change (yet) either VOAF acronym or namespace. To tell the 
truth, my first idea was LOV for Linked Open Vocabularies, but I guess 
some would have found that pun confusing too.
Sorry to keep on pushing puns and portmanteau(s?), from the 
"Semantopic Map" (back in 2001, maybe some folks here remember it, 
it's offline now) to "hubjects" ... Maybe it's not a good idea after all.


So if I sum up the feedback so far
- there is no question the dataset is worth it
- the introduction is a bit confusing (changed a couple of things, 
let's see if it's better or worse)
- the name is totally confusing for some not-so-dumb people, so go 
figure waht happens to not-so-smart ones :)


I'm open to all suggestions to change to something better. Is LOV a 
good idea?

Other proposals :

LV or LVoc : Linked Vocabularies
WOV : Web of Vocabularies


Your LOV letter to all Ontology and Vocabulary creators re. past, 
present, and future :-)


Kingsley

...

Bernard



2011/1/25 Kingsley Idehen >


On 1/25/11 11:59 AM, William Waites wrote:

* [2011-01-25 11:21:45 -0500] Kingsley Idehen  
  écrit:

] Hmm. Is it the Name or Description that's important?
]
] But what about discerning meaning from the VOAF graph?

Humans looking at documents and trying to understand a system
do so in a very different way from machines. While what you
suggest might be strictly true according to the way RDF and
formal logic work, it isn't the way humans work (otherwise
the strong AI project of the past half-century might have
succeeded by now). So we should try arrange things in a way
that is both consistent with what the machines want and as
easy as possible for humans to understand. That Hugh, an
expert in the domain, had trouble figuring it out due to
poetic references to well known concepts suggests that there
is some room for improvement.

Cheers,
-w


Yes, but does a human say: you lost me at VOAF due to FOAF? I
think they do read the docs, at least the opening paragraph :-)

-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen  

Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen


--
Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Vocabulary & Data Engineering
Tel:   +33 (0) 971 488 459
Mail: bernard.vat...@mondeca.com 

Mondeca
3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web: http://www.mondeca.com
Blog: http://mondeca.wordpress.com




--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: Introducing Vocabularies of a Friend (VOAF)

[Bernard Vatant]

Hello all

Points taken. Somehow changed the headings and itroduction at
http://www.mondeca.com/foaf/voaf-doc.html
to make more explicit what is is about (hopefully).

I did not change (yet) either VOAF acronym or namespace. To tell the truth,
my first idea was LOV for Linked Open Vocabularies, but I guess some would
have found that pun confusing too.
Sorry to keep on pushing puns and portmanteau(s?), from the "Semantopic Map"
(back in 2001, maybe some folks here remember it, it's offline now) to
"hubjects" ... Maybe it's not a good idea after all.

So if I sum up the feedback so far
- there is no question the dataset is worth it
- the introduction is a bit confusing (changed a couple of things, let's see
if it's better or worse)
- the name is totally confusing for some not-so-dumb people, so go figure
waht happens to not-so-smart ones :)

I'm open to all suggestions to change to something better. Is LOV a good
idea?
Other proposals :

LV or LVoc : Linked Vocabularies
WOV : Web of Vocabularies
...

Bernard



2011/1/25 Kingsley Idehen 

>  On 1/25/11 11:59 AM, William Waites wrote:
>
> * [2011-01-25 11:21:45 -0500] Kingsley Idehen  
>  écrit:
>
> ] Hmm. Is it the Name or Description that's important?
> ]
> ] But what about discerning meaning from the VOAF graph?
>
> Humans looking at documents and trying to understand a system
> do so in a very different way from machines. While what you
> suggest might be strictly true according to the way RDF and
> formal logic work, it isn't the way humans work (otherwise
> the strong AI project of the past half-century might have
> succeeded by now). So we should try arrange things in a way
> that is both consistent with what the machines want and as
> easy as possible for humans to understand. That Hugh, an
> expert in the domain, had trouble figuring it out due to
> poetic references to well known concepts suggests that there
> is some room for improvement.
>
> Cheers,
> -w
>
>
> Yes, but does a human say: you lost me at VOAF due to FOAF? I think they do
> read the docs, at least the opening paragraph :-)
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen   
> President & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen 
> 
> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>
>
-- 
Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Vocabulary & Data Engineering
Tel:   +33 (0) 971 488 459
Mail: bernard.vat...@mondeca.com

Mondeca
3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:http://www.mondeca.com
Blog:http://mondeca.wordpress.com

Re: Introducing Vocabularies of a Friend (VOAF)

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 1/25/11 12:24 PM, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
Sorry Kingsley, I think you've just demonstrated a very risky 
assumption. People will just mishear and mis-read and get confused.


Most web programmers look for a good-enough example to copy, not read 
the docs.


But you're assuming my audience is strictly "web programmer". I was 
referring to people in general, no specific profile.


Isn't it riskier to assume Linked Data mailing list is dominated by "web 
programmer" profile? :-)


Kingsley


On 25/01/11 17:09, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

On 1/25/11 11:59 AM, William Waites wrote:

* [2011-01-25 11:21:45 -0500] Kingsley Idehen  écrit:

] Hmm. Is it the Name or Description that's important?
]
] But what about discerning meaning from the VOAF graph?

Humans looking at documents and trying to understand a system
do so in a very different way from machines. While what you
suggest might be strictly true according to the way RDF and
formal logic work, it isn't the way humans work (otherwise
the strong AI project of the past half-century might have
succeeded by now). So we should try arrange things in a way
that is both consistent with what the machines want and as
easy as possible for humans to understand. That Hugh, an
expert in the domain, had trouble figuring it out due to
poetic references to well known concepts suggests that there
is some room for improvement.

Cheers,
-w


Yes, but does a human say: you lost me at VOAF due to FOAF? I think 
they do read the docs, at least the opening paragraph :-)


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen






--
Christopher Gutteridge --http://id.ecs.soton.ac.uk/person/1248

/ Lead Developer, EPrints Project,http://eprints.org/
/ Web Projects Manager, ECS, University of 
Southampton,http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
/ Webmaster, Web Science Trust,http://www.webscience.org/



--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: Introducing Vocabularies of a Friend (VOAF)

[Christopher Gutteridge]

Sorry Kingsley, I think you've just demonstrated a very risky 
assumption. People will just mishear and mis-read and get confused.


Most web programmers look for a good-enough example to copy, not read 
the docs.


On 25/01/11 17:09, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

On 1/25/11 11:59 AM, William Waites wrote:

* [2011-01-25 11:21:45 -0500] Kingsley Idehen  écrit:

] Hmm. Is it the Name or Description that's important?
]
] But what about discerning meaning from the VOAF graph?

Humans looking at documents and trying to understand a system
do so in a very different way from machines. While what you
suggest might be strictly true according to the way RDF and
formal logic work, it isn't the way humans work (otherwise
the strong AI project of the past half-century might have
succeeded by now). So we should try arrange things in a way
that is both consistent with what the machines want and as
easy as possible for humans to understand. That Hugh, an
expert in the domain, had trouble figuring it out due to
poetic references to well known concepts suggests that there
is some room for improvement.

Cheers,
-w


Yes, but does a human say: you lost me at VOAF due to FOAF? I think 
they do read the docs, at least the opening paragraph :-)


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen






--
Christopher Gutteridge -- http://id.ecs.soton.ac.uk/person/1248

/ Lead Developer, EPrints Project, http://eprints.org/
/ Web Projects Manager, ECS, University of Southampton, 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
/ Webmaster, Web Science Trust, http://www.webscience.org/

Re: Introducing Vocabularies of a Friend (VOAF)

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 1/25/11 11:59 AM, William Waites wrote:

* [2011-01-25 11:21:45 -0500] Kingsley Idehen  écrit:

] Hmm. Is it the Name or Description that's important?
]
] But what about discerning meaning from the VOAF graph?

Humans looking at documents and trying to understand a system
do so in a very different way from machines. While what you
suggest might be strictly true according to the way RDF and
formal logic work, it isn't the way humans work (otherwise
the strong AI project of the past half-century might have
succeeded by now). So we should try arrange things in a way
that is both consistent with what the machines want and as
easy as possible for humans to understand. That Hugh, an
expert in the domain, had trouble figuring it out due to
poetic references to well known concepts suggests that there
is some room for improvement.

Cheers,
-w


Yes, but does a human say: you lost me at VOAF due to FOAF? I think they 
do read the docs, at least the opening paragraph :-)


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: Introducing Vocabularies of a Friend (VOAF)

[William Waites]

* [2011-01-25 11:21:45 -0500] Kingsley Idehen  écrit:

] Hmm. Is it the Name or Description that's important?
] 
] But what about discerning meaning from the VOAF graph?

Humans looking at documents and trying to understand a system
do so in a very different way from machines. While what you
suggest might be strictly true according to the way RDF and
formal logic work, it isn't the way humans work (otherwise 
the strong AI project of the past half-century might have 
succeeded by now). So we should try arrange things in a way
that is both consistent with what the machines want and as
easy as possible for humans to understand. That Hugh, an
expert in the domain, had trouble figuring it out due to
poetic references to well known concepts suggests that there
is some room for improvement.

Cheers,
-w
-- 
William Waites
http://eris.okfn.org/ww/ 
F4B3 39BF E775 CF42 0BAB  3DF0 BE40 A6DF B06F FD45

Re: Introducing Vocabularies of a Friend (VOAF)

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 1/25/11 8:01 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote:

Very interesting stuff, but...

Sorry Bernard, I agree very much with Chris here.

The name meant little to me as "Vocabularies of a Friend".


Hmm. Is it the Name or Description that's important?


In fact I think it misled me - I immediately assumed it was to do with 
representing information about people (as FOAF), and it took me quite a while 
to challenge that assumption when I looked at the pages (that is, it actually 
inhibited my understanding).


But what about discerning meaning from the VOAF graph?


And the tag line doesn't tell me much more.
And clearly I am not the only one.



But isn't this whole Linked Data gig about doing away with superficial 
literal monikers when actual meaning is a graph de-ref away?



I don't know whether pronouncing things as acronyms (ie words, not initials) is 
a peculiarly English language thing, but that is what happens.
VOAF is too mistakable for FOAF (in fact I find myself sub-vocalizing it as 
FOAF, as FOAF is so familiar to me).
And when I think of how, for example, a native Spaniard or Japanese would 
pronounce VOAF and FOAF when speaking English, I find it hard to imagine always 
detecting the difference.
Simply because it is an homage to another vocabulary that might have a similar 
structure or abstract purpose doesn't mean that it is a good thing to do.
And I am not at all sure that getting Dan's stamp of approval is really the 
commit point!

Quite often names really are important.


Depends on realm, in our human realm we are still de-referencing a graph 
and making sense of it. VOAF exists in human and machine comprehensible 
forms.



Perhaps getting this feedback early on will prove really valuable?
As I say, a really interesting activity in an important area, and sorry to give 
my 2 centimes worth on the name.


Have you moved to the next step i.e., looking at the VOAF graph and 
seeking what it delivers?  :-)



Happy New Year!

Kingsley

Best
Hugh

On 19 Jan 2011, at 23:29, Bernard Vatant wrote:

Hi Christopher

I can't help but feel that calling it VOAF is just going to muddy the waters. 
"Friendly vocabularies for the linked data Web"
doesn't help clarify either. It's cute, but I strongly suggest you at the very 
least make this 'tag line' far more clear.

I agree the current documentation is too sketchy and potentially misleading as 
is. I have put efforts mainly on the dataset itself so far, but you're right it 
has to be better documented.

Regarding the name, well, the pun is here to stay I'm afraid. I've had positive 
feedback from Dan Brickley about it, so I already feel it's too late to change 
now.

Frankly calling something 'voaf' when people will hear it mixed in with 'foaf' 
is just making the world more confusing.

Actually I've not thought much (not at all) about how people would pronounce or 
hear it. I principally communicate with vocabularies (and people using them) 
through written stuff, and very rarely speak about them. I barely know how to 
pronounce OWL, and always feel like a fool when I've to, and will eventually 
spell it O.W.L. - as every other french native would do. If I had to speak 
about VOAF, I think I would spell it also V.O.A.F.

I had a lot of confusion until I found out the "SHOCK" vocab people were 
talking about was spelled SIOC.

Interesting, I was confused exactly the other way round. I've read a lot (and written a bit) about 
SIOC since it's been around, but realized only two days ago how it was pronounced when I actually 
heard someone "speaking" about it the "right" way ... and thought at first time 
it was something else.
Me too!
I knew about them both, and took a while to realise they were the same thing :-)

One other minor suggestion;
Vocabulary
  → 
rdfs:subClassOf
  → 
void:Dataset

might be a mistake because void:Dataset is defined as "A set of RDF triples that are 
published, maintained or aggregated by a single provider."

Not a bug, but a feature. It's exactly what a voaf:Vocabulary is.

and it may be that you would want to define non RDF vocabs using this.

You might want to do that but I don't and I'm the vocabulary creator (right?) 
so I can insist on the fact that this is really meant to describe *RDF* 
vocabularies, and cast this intention in the stone of formal semantics.
If you want to describe other kind of vocabularies the same way, feel free to 
use or create something else. Or extend foaf:Vocabulary to a more generic 
class. It's an open world, let thousand flowers blossom :)

I see no value in making this restriction.

Re: Introducing Vocabularies of a Friend (VOAF)

[Hugh Glaser]

Very interesting stuff, but...

Sorry Bernard, I agree very much with Chris here.

The name meant little to me as "Vocabularies of a Friend".
In fact I think it misled me - I immediately assumed it was to do with 
representing information about people (as FOAF), and it took me quite a while 
to challenge that assumption when I looked at the pages (that is, it actually 
inhibited my understanding).
And the tag line doesn't tell me much more.
And clearly I am not the only one.

I don't know whether pronouncing things as acronyms (ie words, not initials) is 
a peculiarly English language thing, but that is what happens.
VOAF is too mistakable for FOAF (in fact I find myself sub-vocalizing it as 
FOAF, as FOAF is so familiar to me).
And when I think of how, for example, a native Spaniard or Japanese would 
pronounce VOAF and FOAF when speaking English, I find it hard to imagine always 
detecting the difference.
Simply because it is an homage to another vocabulary that might have a similar 
structure or abstract purpose doesn't mean that it is a good thing to do.
And I am not at all sure that getting Dan's stamp of approval is really the 
commit point!

Quite often names really are important.
Perhaps getting this feedback early on will prove really valuable?
As I say, a really interesting activity in an important area, and sorry to give 
my 2 centimes worth on the name.

Best
Hugh

On 19 Jan 2011, at 23:29, Bernard Vatant wrote:

Hi Christopher

I can't help but feel that calling it VOAF is just going to muddy the waters. 
"Friendly vocabularies for the linked data Web"
doesn't help clarify either. It's cute, but I strongly suggest you at the very 
least make this 'tag line' far more clear.

I agree the current documentation is too sketchy and potentially misleading as 
is. I have put efforts mainly on the dataset itself so far, but you're right it 
has to be better documented.

Regarding the name, well, the pun is here to stay I'm afraid. I've had positive 
feedback from Dan Brickley about it, so I already feel it's too late to change 
now.

Frankly calling something 'voaf' when people will hear it mixed in with 'foaf' 
is just making the world more confusing.

Actually I've not thought much (not at all) about how people would pronounce or 
hear it. I principally communicate with vocabularies (and people using them) 
through written stuff, and very rarely speak about them. I barely know how to 
pronounce OWL, and always feel like a fool when I've to, and will eventually 
spell it O.W.L. - as every other french native would do. If I had to speak 
about VOAF, I think I would spell it also V.O.A.F.

I had a lot of confusion until I found out the "SHOCK" vocab people were 
talking about was spelled SIOC.

Interesting, I was confused exactly the other way round. I've read a lot (and 
written a bit) about SIOC since it's been around, but realized only two days 
ago how it was pronounced when I actually heard someone "speaking" about it the 
"right" way ... and thought at first time it was something else.
Me too!
I knew about them both, and took a while to realise they were the same thing :-)

One other minor suggestion;
Vocabulary
 → 
rdfs:subClassOf
 → 
void:Dataset

might be a mistake because void:Dataset is defined as "A set of RDF triples 
that are published, maintained or aggregated by a single provider."

Not a bug, but a feature. It's exactly what a voaf:Vocabulary is.

and it may be that you would want to define non RDF vocabs using this.

You might want to do that but I don't and I'm the vocabulary creator (right?) 
so I can insist on the fact that this is really meant to describe *RDF* 
vocabularies, and cast this intention in the stone of formal semantics.
If you want to describe other kind of vocabularies the same way, feel free to 
use or create something else. Or extend foaf:Vocabulary to a more generic 
class. It's an open world, let thousand flowers blossom :)

I see no value in making this restriction.

The value I see is to keep this vocabulary use focused on what it was meant for.

Best

Bernard

--
Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Vocabulary & Data Engineering
Tel:   +33 (0) 971 488 459
Mail: bernard.vat...@mondeca.com

Mondeca
3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:http://www.mondeca.com
Blog:http://mondeca.wordpress.com


--
Hugh Glaser,
  Intelligence, A