[foaf-protocols] catchy logo, catchy name

mike amundsen mamund at yahoo.com
Sun May 16 22:58:56 CEST 2010


> WebId seems good enough. It's like OpenId and has the Webbish elelment. I wonder what Seth thinks.

yep, it's enough. What I mean to say is that, when engaging in
conversations, "WebId" elicits questions and using the qualifiers I
offered usually pops a light bulb over people's heads. FWIW, I've also
used "Authenticed FOAF" and "Authenticated WebId" to get the same
positive reactions.

I also agree that the target audience right now is _not_ self-hosting
FOAF-ers. What I am attempting to convey with the FOAF-a-matic example
is how easy it can be to get started. I fill in some fields, I press a
button. I get a WebID/FOAF+SSL. The primary point was increasing
"automatic" part of FOAF+SSL.

mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/




On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 16:29, Story Henry <henry.story at bblfish.net> wrote:
>
> On 16 May 2010, at 21:15, mike amundsen wrote:
>
>> Something such as "WebId-o-matic"[1] might be a nice way to introduce
>> folks to FOAF+SSL.
>
> That is still too geeky. Asking people to copy rdf and install it on their web server
> is not going to get us a lot of coverage. Much better would be if http://foafbuilder.qdos.org/ added WebId support. But any Web2.0 app can do it easily: all you need is a home page for every users.
>
>> It would basically create the hosted FOAF _and_ do
>> the cert work at the same time.
>>
>> Some ways I've described this to others recently are:
>> "Certified FOAF",
>> "Certified WebId",
>> "Personal WebId",
>
> WebId seems good enough. It's like OpenId and has the Webbish elelment. I wonder what Seth thinks.
>
> Henry
>
>> etc.
>>
>> mca
>> http://amundsen.com/blog/
>>
>> [1] http://www.ldodds.com/foaf/foaf-a-matic
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 15:40, Story Henry <henry.story at bblfish.net> wrote:
>>> On Twitter Seth Russel suggested
>>>
>>> "[foaf+ssl] needs a catchy name and a catchy logo ... it's way too hard to even refer to it ...& needs a generic authorize me button" [1]
>>>
>>> Seth, so we have "WebId" as a reasonably catchy name,  and the following logo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> which is kind of cute. foaf+ssl is the technology. But WebId is the name we should be using. Is that good enough?
>>>
>>> Henry
>>>
>>> [1] http://twitter.com/SethRussell/status/14115845285
>>>
>>> Social Web Architect
>>> http://bblfish.net/
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foaf-protocols mailing list
>>> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
>>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>>>
>
>


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list