W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Branding?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:27:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+ZJMeKAogDjFq5KFcHftQK_P1A0TRu0hA0=MzhHax+sdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
On 26 July 2011 12:59, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> Manu Sporny wrote:
>>
>> JSON-SD doesn't really roll off of the tongue... neither did JSON-LD or
>> RDFa. HTML is only used because it's been around forever... but it's a
>> pretty crappy brand name. Any thoughts on what this technology should be
>> called as we ready it for public consumption?
>>
>> I was thinking: Structure
>>
>> "Structure allows you to express Linked Data in JSON"
>>
>> Yes, I realize that isn't entirely accurate, but tag-lines rarely are
>> accurate. Thoughts on branding the technology so that it's easy to drop into
>> a conversation without scaring Web developers away or making people feel as
>> if the conversation is going to take a scary turn toward geek-speak?
>
> To me the most important property of a name, is that it can easily be used
> as a reference when talking about that thing. In the web environment that
> means that I prefer unique names over brandable names.
>
> If one searches for "structure", they likely will never find anything
> related to Structure-nee-JSON-LD; thus a name like JSON-LD or JSON-SD takes
> preference imho, as it's fairly unambiguous and thus useful.

Yes, please choose something that allows for meaningful searches in
current search engines.

Having said that, how about JLO? JSON Linked Objects?

The term is pretty much owned already by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Lopez though. But then so are
all three letter acronyms, to some extent.

cheers,

Dan
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 14:28:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:53:17 UTC