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

Re: Defining "LD" (was Re: Branding?)

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:19:02 -0400
Message-ID: <4E31A816.4000206@digitalbazaar.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
-cc: public-lod@w3.org

Sorry, I don't think we should be cross-posting this discussion. Feel 
free to add it back in, but until we have an idea of what we're doing, I 
don't think it's helpful to pull the larger community in. Especially 
since they don't know what we're trying to do with JSON-*D.

On 07/28/2011 01:21 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
> "LD" meaning "Labeled and Directed" for JSON-LD works for me too.

I have an issue with "Labeled and Directed" - try using it in a 
conversation with a Web Developer that doesn't know about this area - 
Linked Data, Semantic Web, etc. It will take quite a bit to explain to 
them what "Labeled and Directed" means.

Kingsley, Dave, Danny - what about:

"JSON for Linking Data" - JSON-LD

That way, the name itself is fairly self-explanatory and we don't muddy 
the waters by using the "Linked Data" terminology in the spec's name. We 
can have a definition of "Linked Data" in the spec, and tell them that 
is the ideal we want to move towards, but that the "JSON for Linking 
Data" allows them to express Linked Data as well as other types of 
non-Linked data. Thoughts?

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Uber Comparison of RDFa, Microformats and Microdata
http://manu.sporny.org/2011/uber-comparison-rdfa-md-uf/
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2011 18:19:27 UTC

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