- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:39:49 -0400
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- CC: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, public-linked-json@w3.org
On 7/28/11 3:28 PM, Danny Ayers wrote: > On 28 July 2011 20:45, Dave Longley<dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: >> On 07/28/2011 02:19 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: >>> 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. > Ah, right, I can imagine. I guess that should be dropped. > >>> 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 >>> >> I would be fine with "JSON for Linking Data". > Me too. > Me too re: 1. "JSON for Linking Data" or; 2. "LD" meaning "Linked Data" where we leverage the use of *SHOULD* re. de-referencavble IRIs to accommodate Blank Node edge cases. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2011 19:40:14 UTC