I am posting this post as a "comment to the comments" generated by my last post "Will We Convey the Meaning of Semantics?", as a means to surface the discussion and collect additional reactions.
Csaba makes
a good point. Indeed it would be unfair to go after technology
inventors for the problem of what we common people characterized as
"jargon". As I mentioned in my post, there are many reasons behind the
creation of a new vocabulary, some of them very compelling from a value
creation perspective (e.g. to express new concepts and differentiate
them from the old ones), and others less (e.g. to keep control of the
technology).
Generally speaking, I tend to think that (1) the creation of new concepts is the key motivator of inventors for this behavior (2) it is not really a core competence nor the job of original inventors to democratize/simplify their vocabulary, as there are people who can do that much better. I described that previously in a blog post, writing that "Marketing semantics is NOT rocket science, so don’t ask rocket scientists to do it!".
This is a bit of a sweeping statement, as there are exceptions to the rule, but in my experience I'd say it's generally better to let people not subject to a knowledge curse (see the same post) do the translation. To be honest, on semweb specifically, I did find it a little funny as my title suggested that experts in semantics, which is the "study of meaning", expressed their concepts through a vocabulary that is relatively difficult to get, and prone to creating some confusion. But in all fairness, let's remember that for the semantic web, the idea is to have machines get the meaning of our communications.
The other point I made in the post you're commenting on, is that there is a new wave of "translators", if you will, ready to take on that job, and that is very promising. This should really be the idea we retain We are at a juncture, and pioneers must do everything they can to facilitate the adoption of semweb concepts and technologies by this new wave of users. For the most part, I think this is now recognized in the industry, and there is a move to make the semweb more accessible. We probably had to get to a certain stage, technology-wise, before investing in this effort.
Image by dullhunk
via Flickr
Lastly, a point I didn't make in this post but that in retrospect I should have made, as it often surfaces (and certainly did at the Semantic Technologies Conference this year), is that a way to disseminate the semtech concepts more broadly is also to integrate them into applications, without boasting them front and center. I've heard many say that this "semweb inside" tactic was the only way to get the semweb "out". When we'll succeed at this approach, the semweb will have travelled a long way.
Ultimately, I don't know which way will work best, i.e. "semweb inside" or "semweb illustrated" (i.e. explained, clarified, and/or simplified), but I strongly suspect it's not an Either/Or statement. Both approaches should be used, depending on the intended audience and value proposition. Educating the mainstream end users about RDF will probably do little for adoption, but for web developers, who currently remain the most natural audience for semweb popularization, it's a different story. Let's not burn any bridges.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c2c2e61c-65e0-4d00-b4bf-9e9a89cba11a)
