Shared publicly  - 
"As a community, we Semantic Webbers have done a poor job communicating our value clearly and concisely."

Thanks +Rob Gonzalez for making this point so plainly.

A colleague of mine - who through my haranguing - knows the conceptual basics of structured data, sent me this in an email after seeing an article in which I spoke about structured markup (

I still have problems with the word structured data. It kind of tunes you out as a reader. Maybe you start with more real world examples, the problems of putting your business on the web and getting found and not spammed.

Indeed. Value propositions first.  Jargon later.
Rob Gonzalez's profile photoAaron Bradley's profile photo
I totally agree.  Solution-oriented selling to a specific niche for a specific need is the classic Crossing the Chasm strategy.  I wonder if anyone has ever done analysis looking at that strategy as it pertains to a whole community rather than a single company?  That is, we've had a lot of success in pharma, and lately specifically for Competitive Intelligence.  But there are a million other use cases that one could hit head on without even mentioning the word Semantic (except like the old Intel ads: "Semantic Inside")
Thanks +Rob Gonzalez - I hear you loud and clear.  In my (many) real-world, work-oriented discussions about employing semantic web technologies, the most frequent - and extremely reasonable - question that gets fired at me is "why?"  And there's rarely a readily-digestible value prop I can fire back with (though, in search, Bing and Google have made that job in some situations easier, because at least I can point out the benefits of improved search visibility for some applications - something I can point to that everyone readily understands).

I love the "Semantic Inside" sentiment. :)   And it's obviously true.  Successful technologies are rarely monolithic, and nor is their promised realized in one stroke.

I'll leave it at that, as this conversation has taken another turn ( :)
Add a comment...